↓ Skip to main content

Review and evaluation of the methodological quality of the existing guidelines and recommendations for inherited neurometabolic disorders

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Review and evaluation of the methodological quality of the existing guidelines and recommendations for inherited neurometabolic disorders
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13023-015-0376-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Linda Cassis, Elisenda Cortès-Saladelafont, Marta Molero-Luis, Delia Yubero, Maria Julieta González, Aida Ormazábal, Carme Fons, Cristina Jou, Cristina Sierra, Esperanza Castejon Ponce, Federico Ramos, Judith Armstrong, M. Mar O’Callaghan, Mercedes Casado, Raquel Montero, Silvia Meavilla-Olivas, Rafael Artuch, Ivo Barić, Franco Bartoloni, Cinzia Maria Bellettato, Fedele Bonifazi, Adriana Ceci, Ljerka Cvitanović-Šojat, Christine I Dali, Francesca D’Avanzo, Ksenija Fumic, Viviana Giannuzzi, Christina Lampe, Maurizio Scarpa, Ángels Garcia-Cazorla

Abstract

Inherited neurometabolic disorders (iNMDs) represent a group of almost seven hundred rare diseases whose common manifestations are clinical neurologic or cognitive symptoms that can appear at any time, in the first months/years of age or even later in adulthood. Early diagnosis and timely treatments are often pivotal for the favorable course of the disease. Thus, the elaboration of new evidence-based recommendations for iNMD diagnosis and management is increasingly requested by health care professionals and patients, even though the methodological quality of existing guidelines is largely unclear. InNerMeD-I-Network is the first European network on iNMDs that was created with the aim of sharing and increasing validated information about diagnosis and management of neurometabolic disorders. One of the goals of the project was to determine the number and the methodological quality of existing guidelines and recommendations for iNMDs. We performed a systematic search on PubMed, the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), the Guidelines International Network (G-I-N), the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to identify all the published guidelines and recommendations for iNMDs from January 2000 to June 2015. The methodological quality of the selected documents was determined using the AGREE II instrument, an appraisal tool composed of 6 domains covering 23 key items. A total of 55 records met the inclusion criteria, 11 % were about groups of disorders, whereas the majority encompassed only one disorder. Lysosomal disorders, and in particular Fabry, Gaucher disease and mucopolysaccharidoses where the most studied. The overall methodological quality of the recommendation was acceptable and increased over time, with 25 % of the identified guidelines strongly recommended by the appraisers, 64 % recommended, and 11 % not recommended. However, heterogeneity in the obtained scores for each domain was observed among documents covering different groups of disorders and some domains like 'stakeholder involvement' and 'applicability' were generally scarcely addressed. Greater efforts should be devoted to improve the methodological quality of guidelines and recommendations for iNMDs and AGREE II instrument seems advisable for new guideline development. The elaboration of new guidelines encompassing still uncovered disorders is badly needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 71 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 19%
Other 10 14%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 19 26%
Unknown 7 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Psychology 5 7%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 10 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 17 April 2016.
All research outputs
#4,050,567
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#543
of 2,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,613
of 393,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#11
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,620 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 393,182 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.