↓ Skip to main content

Newborn screening for pompe disease? a qualitative study exploring professional views

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Newborn screening for pompe disease? a qualitative study exploring professional views
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2431-14-203
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carla G van El, Tessel Rigter, Arnold JJ Reuser, Ans T van der Ploeg, Stephanie S Weinreich, Martina C Cornel

Abstract

Developments in enzyme replacement therapy have kindled discussions on adding Pompe disease, characterized by progressive muscle weakness and wasting, to neonatal screening. Pompe disease does not fit traditional screening criteria as it is a broad-spectrum phenotype disorder that may occur in lethal form in early infancy or manifest in less severe forms from infancy to late adulthood. Current screening tests cannot differentiate between these forms. Normally, expanding screening is discussed among experts in advisory bodies. While advisory reports usually mention the procedures and outcome of deliberations, little is known of the importance attached to different arguments and the actual weighing processes involved. In this research we aim to explore the views of a wide range of relevant professionals to gain more insight into the process of weighing pros and cons of neonatal screening for Pompe disease, as an example of the dilemmas involved in screening for broad-spectrum phenotype disorders.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 13%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 11 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 35%
Psychology 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 11 24%