↓ Skip to main content

A framework to start the debate on neonatal screening policies in the EU: an Expert Opinion Document

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Human Genetics, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
A framework to start the debate on neonatal screening policies in the EU: an Expert Opinion Document
Published in
European Journal of Human Genetics, May 2013
DOI 10.1038/ejhg.2013.90
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martina C Cornel, Tessel Rigter, Stephanie S Weinreich, Peter Burgard, Georg F Hoffmann, Martin Lindner, J Gerard Loeber, Kathrin Rupp, Domenica Taruscio, Luciano Vittozzi

Abstract

The European Union (EU) Council Recommendation on rare diseases urged the member states to implement national and EU collaborative actions to improve the health care of rare disease patients. Following this recommendation, the European Commission launched a tender on newborn screening (NBS) to report on current practices of laboratory testing, form a network of experts and provide guidance on how to further implement NBS screening in a responsible way, the latter of which was provided in an Expert Opinion document. After consultation of experts from EU member states, (potential) candidate member states and European Free Trade Association countries, in a consensus meeting in June 2011, 70 expert opinions were finalized. They included the need to develop case definitions for all disorders screened for to facilitate assessment and international outcome studies. Decision whether a screening program should be performed can be based on screening criteria updated from the traditional Wilson and Jungner (1968) criteria, relating to disease, treatment, test and cost. The interest of the child should be central in the assessment of pros and cons. A European NBS body should assess evidence on (new) screening candidate disorders. For rare conditions, best level evidence should be used. The health system should ensure treatment to cases diagnosed by screening, controlled and revised by follow-up outcome studies. Screening methodology should aim to avoid unintended findings, such as mild forms and carrier status information, as much as possible. Activities to improve NBS in Europe, such as training and scientific evaluation, could benefit from collaboration at EU level and beyond.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 52 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 30%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Other 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 6 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 7 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 December 2013.
All research outputs
#3,152,837
of 12,891,920 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Human Genetics
#968
of 2,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,270
of 147,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Human Genetics
#15
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,891,920 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,461 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 147,879 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.