| Title |
New recommendations for the Dutch neonatal screening programme. A report from the Health Council of the Netherlands.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, January 2015
|
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martina C Cornel |
| Abstract |
The Health Council of the Netherlands recently issued a report advising adding 14 new disorders to the current neonatal screening programme: 11 metabolic conditions, severe combined immunodeficiency disease, beta-thalassaemia major and HbH disease. This recommendation was made because of the availability of new tests and treatments. The new criteria of availability and accessibility of treatment became relevant following discussions on reimbursement of enzyme replacement therapy for Pompe's disease. The potential for alternative or complementary measures for prevention are discussed, such as preconception and prenatal carrier screening. This report advises against reporting carrier information following newborn screening: advice that is not in line with earlier Health Council advice. A further recommendation is that newborn screening for untreatable conditions is not indicated now. Screening for untreatable conditions may not be the responsibility of national public health agencies, but alternative stakeholders have not been considered in the report. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 40% |
| Researcher | 3 | 30% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 30% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 10% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 October 2015.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde
#756
of 989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#306,558
of 359,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde
#39
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 989 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 359,549 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.