↓ Skip to main content

Newborn screening for X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy: evidence summary and advisory committee recommendation

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics in Medicine, June 2016
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 (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
Newborn screening for X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy: evidence summary and advisory committee recommendation
Published in
Genetics in Medicine, June 2016
DOI 10.1038/gim.2016.68
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alex R. Kemper, Jeffrey Brosco, Anne Marie Comeau, Nancy S. Green, Scott D. Grosse, Elizabeth Jones, Jennifer M. Kwon, Wendy K.K. Lam, Jelili Ojodu, Lisa A. Prosser, Susan Tanksley

Abstract

The secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services in February 2016 recommended that X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy (X-ALD) be added to the recommended uniform screening panel for state newborn screening programs. This decision was informed by data presented on the accuracy of screening from New York, the only state that currently offers X-ALD newborn screening, and published and unpublished data showing health benefits of earlier treatment (hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and adrenal hormone replacement therapy) for the childhood cerebral form of X-ALD. X-ALD newborn screening also identifies individuals with later-onset disease, but poor genotype-phenotype correlation makes predicting health outcomes difficult and might increase the risk of unnecessary treatment. Few data are available regarding the harms of screening and presymptomatic identification. Significant challenges exist for implementing comprehensive X-ALD newborn screening, including incorporation of the test, coordinating follow-up diagnostic and treatment care, and coordination of extended family testing after case identification.Genet Med advance online publication 23 June 2016Genetics in Medicine (2016); doi:10.1038/gim.2016.68.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Argentina 1 1%
Unknown 69 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Other 7 10%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 21 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 23 32%

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 01 February 2018.
All research outputs
#3,141,690
of 12,861,409 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#975
of 1,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,295
of 261,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#30
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,861,409 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 1,790 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.7. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 261,338 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.