↓ Skip to main content

Newborn screening: A disease‐changing intervention for glutaric aciduria type 1

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Neurology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
58 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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: A disease‐changing intervention for glutaric aciduria type 1
Published in
Annals of Neurology, April 2018
DOI 10.1002/ana.25233
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nikolas Boy, Katharina Mengler, Eva Thimm, Katharina A. Schiergens, Thorsten Marquardt, Natalie Weinhold, Iris Marquardt, Anibh M. Das, Peter Freisinger, Sarah C. Grünert, Judith Vossbeck, Robert Steinfeld, Matthias R. Baumgartner, Skadi Beblo, Andrea Dieckmann, Andrea Näke, Martin Lindner, Jana Heringer, Georg F. Hoffmann, Chris Mühlhausen, Esther M. Maier, Regina Ensenauer, Sven F. Garbade, Stefan Kölker

Abstract

Untreated individuals with glutaric aciduria type 1 (GA1) commonly present with a complex, predominantly dystonic movement disorder (MD) following acute or insidious onset striatal damage. Implementation of GA1 into newborn screening (NBS) programmes has improved the short-term outcome. It remains unclear, however, whether NBS changes the long-term outcome and which variables are predictive. This prospective, observational, multi-centre study includes 87 patients identified by NBS, four patients missed by NBS and three women with GA1 identified by positive NBS results of their unaffected children. The study population comprises 98.3% of individuals with GA1 identified by NBS in Germany between 1999-2016. Overall, cumulative sensitivity of NBS is 95.6%, but is lower (84%) for patients with low excretor phenotype. Neurologic outcome of patients missed by NBS is as poor as in the pre-NBS era, while the clinical phenotype of diagnosed patients depends on the quality of therapeutic interventions rather than non-interventional variables: Presymptomatic start of treatment according to current guideline recommendations clearly improves the neurologic outcome (MD: 7% of patients), while delayed emergency treatment results in acute onset MD (100%), and deviations from maintenance treatment increase the risk of insidious onset MD (50%). Independent of the neurologic phenotype, kidney function tends to decline with age, a non-neurologic manifestation not predicted by any variable included in this study. NBS is a beneficial, disease-changing intervention for GA1. However, improved neurologic outcome critically depends on adherence to recommended therapy while kidney dysfunction does not appear to be impacted by recommended therapy. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 16%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 17 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 22 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 57. 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 April 2023.
All research outputs
#757,788
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Neurology
#268
of 5,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,592
of 339,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Neurology
#4
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 339,498 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.