Evidence Hub

Historical Perspectives, Classification and Diagnostic Approaches of Inborn Errors of Metabolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Janvière Mutamuliza, Elizabeth Gori, L. Mutesa, F. Debray

Metabolites, 2026

8,234,567 participants

Abstract

Highlights What are the main findings? Diagnostic Technologies Demonstrate Excellent Performance: Tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) achieved a pooled sensitivity of 99.1% and specificity of 99.8% for newborn screening of inborn errors of metabolism (IEMs) across 54 studies (8.23 million individuals, 35 countries). In comparison, next-generation sequencing (NGS) yielded a diagnostic rate of 42.8% in suspected cases—rising to 58–65% when integrated with multi-omics. Emerging artificial intelligence (AI)-powered tools achieved an area under the curve (AUC) > 0.95 for specific IEMs (e.g., glycogen storage disease type Ia (GSD Ia): 0.955; citrin deficiency: 0.993). IEM Prevalence and Classification Are Well-Defined but Underappreciated: The pooled global IEM prevalence is 50.9 per 100,000 live births (~1 in 1965), with 16 historical milestones identified from Garrod’s 1902 “chemical individuality” concept to 2025 AI-powered diagnostics. Four major classification systems were characterized: pathophysiological, biochemical pathway-based, organelle-based, and Society for the Study of Inborn Errors of Metabolism (SSIEM) nosology, each serving complementary clinical and research purposes. What are the implications of the main findings? Clinical Practice: Tiered, Technology-Integrated Diagnostic Algorithms Are Now Essential: The high performance of MS/MS (99.1% sensitivity) supports its continued role as the cornerstone of universal newborn screening, but the low positive predictive…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 8,234,567 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free