↓ Skip to main content

Clinical Follow‐Up for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Newborn Screening: A Proposal

Overview of attention for article published in Muscle & Nerve, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Clinical Follow‐Up for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Newborn Screening: A Proposal
Published in
Muscle & Nerve, June 2016
DOI 10.1002/mus.25185
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer M Kwon, Hoda Z Abdel-Hamid, Samiah A Al-Zaidy, Jerry R Mendell, Annie Kennedy, Kathi Kinnett, Valerie A Cwik, Natalie Street, Julie Bolen, John W Day, Anne M Connolly

Abstract

New developments in the rapid diagnosis and treatment of boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) have led to growing enthusiasm for instituting DMD newborn screening (NBS) in the United States. Our group has been interested in developing clinical guidance to be implemented consistently in specialty care clinics (SCC) charged with the care of pre-symptomatically identified newborns referred after DMD-NBS. We reviewed the existing literature covering patient-centered clinical follow-up after NBS, educational material from public health and advocacy sites, and federal recommendations on effective newborn screening follow-up. We discussed the review as a group and added our own experience to develop materials suitable for initial parent and primary care provider education. These materials and a series of templates for subspecialist encounters could be used to provide consistent care across centers and serve as the basis for ongoing quality improvement. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 14%
Researcher 6 12%
Unspecified 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 14 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 29%
Unspecified 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 14 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 January 2017.
All research outputs
#7,960,512
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Muscle & Nerve
#879
of 3,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,040
of 368,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Muscle & Nerve
#13
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 368,512 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 65% 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 73% of its contemporaries.