↓ Skip to main content

Newborn screening in the Asia Pacific region

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease, July 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
121 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
Title
Newborn screening in the Asia Pacific region
Published in
Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease, July 2007
DOI 10.1007/s10545-007-0687-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carmencita D. Padilla, Bradford L. Therrell

Abstract

The success of blood spot newborn screening in the USA led to early screening efforts in parts of the Asia Pacific Region in the mid-1960s. While there were early screening leaders in the region, many of the countries with depressed and developing economies are only now beginning organized screening efforts. Four periods of screening growth in the Asia Pacific region were identified. Beginning in the 1960s, blood spot screening began in New Zealand and Australia, followed by Japan and a cord blood screening programme for G6PD deficiency in Singapore. In the 1980s, established programmes added congenital hypothyroidism and new programmes developed in Taiwan, Hong Kong, China (Shanghai), India and Malaysia. Programmes developing in the 1990s built on the experience of others developing more rapidly in Korea, Thailand and the Philippines. In the 2000s, with limited funding support from the International Atomic Energy Agency, there has been screening programme development around detection of congenital hypothyroidism in Indonesia, Mongolia, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Pakistan. Palau has recently contracted with the Philippine newborn screening programme. There is little information available on newborn screening activities in Nepal, Cambodia, Laos and the other Pacific Island nations, with no organized screening efforts apparent. Since approximately half of the births in the world occur in the Asia Pacific Region, it is important to continue the ongoing implementation and expansion efforts so that these children can attain the same health status as children in more developed parts of the world and their full potential can be realized.

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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Philippines 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Unknown 113 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 17%
Student > Master 17 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 25 21%
Unknown 24 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 32 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 November 2011.
All research outputs
#14,138,735
of 22,655,397 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease
#1,353
of 1,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,949
of 67,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease
#15
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,655,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,831 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 67,199 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.