↓ Skip to main content

Diagnosis of Cystic Fibrosis: Consensus Guidelines from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pediatrics, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
twitter
21 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
309 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
696 Mendeley
Title
Diagnosis of Cystic Fibrosis: Consensus Guidelines from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
Published in
Journal of Pediatrics, February 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.09.064
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip M. Farrell, Terry B. White, Clement L. Ren, Sarah E. Hempstead, Frank Accurso, Nico Derichs, Michelle Howenstine, Susanna A. McColley, Michael Rock, Margaret Rosenfeld, Isabelle Sermet-Gaudelus, Kevin W. Southern, Bruce C. Marshall, Patrick R. Sosnay

Abstract

Cystic fibrosis (CF), caused by mutations in the CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene, continues to present diagnostic challenges. Newborn screening and an evolving understanding of CF genetics have prompted a reconsideration of the diagnosis criteria. To improve diagnosis and achieve standardized definitions worldwide, the CF Foundation convened a committee of 32 experts in CF diagnosis from 9 countries to develop clear and actionable consensus guidelines on the diagnosis of CF and to clarify diagnostic criteria and terminology for other disorders associated with CFTR mutations. An a priori threshold of ≥80% affirmative votes was required for acceptance of each recommendation statement. After reviewing relevant literature, the committee convened to review evidence and cases. Following the conference, consensus statements were developed by an executive subcommittee. The entire consensus committee voted and approved 27 of 28 statements, 7 of which needed revisions and a second round of voting. It is recommended that diagnoses associated with CFTR mutations in all individuals, from newborn to adult, be established by evaluation of CFTR function with a sweat chloride test. The latest mutation classifications annotated in the Clinical and Functional Translation of CFTR project (http://www.cftr2.org/index.php) should be used to aid in diagnosis. Newborns with a high immunoreactive trypsinogen level and inconclusive CFTR functional and genetic testing may be designated CFTR-related metabolic syndrome or CF screen positive, inconclusive diagnosis; these terms are now merged and equivalent, and CFTR-related metabolic syndrome/CF screen positive, inconclusive diagnosis may be used. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision codes for use in diagnoses associated with CFTR mutations are included.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 696 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 696 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 173 25%
Student > Master 103 15%
Researcher 55 8%
Other 55 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 8%
Other 122 18%
Unknown 135 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 230 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 124 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 46 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 18 3%
Other 90 13%
Unknown 162 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 80. 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 25 June 2020.
All research outputs
#319,361
of 17,635,820 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pediatrics
#192
of 10,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,974
of 367,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pediatrics
#7
of 196 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,635,820 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,389 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 367,134 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 196 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.