↓ Skip to main content

Newborn Screening for Primary Immunodeficiency Diseases: History, Current and Future Practice

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Immunology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
110 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 Mendeley
Title
Newborn Screening for Primary Immunodeficiency Diseases: History, Current and Future Practice
Published in
Journal of Clinical Immunology, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10875-017-0455-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jovanka R. King, Lennart Hammarström

Abstract

The primary objective of population-based newborn screening is the early identification of asymptomatic infants with a range of severe diseases, for which effective treatment is available and where early diagnosis and intervention prevent serious sequelae. Primary immunodeficiency diseases (PID) are a heterogeneous group of inborn errors of immunity. Severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) is one form of PID which is uniformly fatal without early, definitive therapy, and outcomes are significantly improved if infants are diagnosed and treated within the first few months of life. Screening for SCID using T cell receptor excision circle (TREC) analysis has been introduced in many countries worldwide. The utility of additional screening with kappa recombining excision circles (KREC) has also been described, enabling identification of infants with severe forms of PID manifested by T and B cell lymphopenia. Here, we review the early origins of newborn screening and the evolution of screening methodologies. We discuss current strategies employed in newborn screening programs for PID, including TREC and TREC/KREC-based screening, and consider the potential future role of protein-based assays, targeted sequencing, and next generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, including whole genome sequencing (WGS).

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 148 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 19 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Student > Master 14 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Researcher 11 7%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 54 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 3%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 61 41%
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 07 October 2021.
All research outputs
#4,087,986
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Immunology
#232
of 1,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,946
of 331,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Immunology
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 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 1,571 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 331,464 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.