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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Public support for neonatal screening for Pompe disease, a broad-phenotype condition
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1750-1172-7-15 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephanie Shifra Weinreich, Tessel Rigter, Carla Geertruida van El, Wybo Jan Dondorp, Pieter Johannes Kostense, Ans T van der Ploeg, Arnold JJ Reuser, Martina Cornelia Cornel, Marloes Louise Catharina Hagemans |
| Abstract |
Neonatal screening for Pompe disease has been introduced in Taiwan and a few U.S. states, while other jurisdictions including some European countries are piloting or considering this screening. First-tier screening flags both classic infantile and late-onset Pompe disease, which challenges current screening criteria. Previously, advocacy groups have sometimes supported expanded neonatal screening more than professional experts, while neutral citizens' views were unknown. This study aimed to measure support for neonatal screening for Pompe disease in the general public and to compare it to support among (parents of) patients with this condition. The study was done in the Netherlands, where newborns are not currently screened for Pompe disease. Newborn screening is not mandatory in the Netherlands but current uptake is almost universal. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 56 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 24% |
| Unknown | 7 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 54% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 9 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 March 2012.
All research outputs
#16,047,334
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#1,776
of 3,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,845
of 168,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,105 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 168,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.