↓ Skip to main content

Newborn screening for Tyrosinemia type 1 using succinylacetone – a systematic review of test accuracy

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, March 2017
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
Title
Newborn screening for Tyrosinemia type 1 using succinylacetone – a systematic review of test accuracy
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13023-017-0599-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chris Stinton, Julia Geppert, Karoline Freeman, Aileen Clarke, Samantha Johnson, Hannah Fraser, Paul Sutcliffe, Sian Taylor-Phillips

Abstract

Tyrosinemia type 1 is an autosomal recessive disorder of amino acid metabolism. Without treatment, death in childhood is common. Treatment with nitisinone and dietary restrictions are associated with improved outcomes; some studies suggest better outcomes when treatment begins at an asymptomatic stage. Newborn screening allows for earlier identification, but there is uncertainty regarding the test accuracy of the current method: succinylacetone measurement in dried blood spots using tandem mass spectrometry. We conducted a systematic review of literature published up to January 2016. Two reviewers independently assessed titles, abstracts, full texts, and conducted quality appraisals. A single reviewer extracted data, which was checked by a second reviewer. Ten studies provided test accuracy data: five studies reporting screening experiences and five case-control studies. Sensitivity (29 cases in total) and specificity (34,403 controls in total) were 100% in the case-control studies, but could not be calculated in the studies reporting screening experiences due to a lack of follow-up of screen-negative babies. Positive predictive values in the screening experience studies ranged from 66.7% (2 true positive cases, 1 false positive case from ~500,000 people screened) to 100% (8 true positive cases from 856,671 people screened); negative predictive values could not be calculated. Positive and negative predictive values cannot be calculated from case-control studies. Screening for Tyrosinemia type 1 using tandem mass spectrometry measurement of succinylacetone from dried blood spots appears to be promising. Confirmation of test accuracy data should be obtained from studies that include a two-year follow-up of individuals who screen negative.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 27 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 13%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 25 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 28 August 2018.
All research outputs
#2,658,105
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#339
of 2,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,468
of 307,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#16
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,630 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 87% 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 307,583 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 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.