↓ Skip to main content

Parental Permission for Pilot Newborn Screening Research: Guidelines From the NBSTRN

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatrics, February 2014
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 (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users

Readers on

mendeley
52 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.
Article details
Title
Parental Permission for Pilot Newborn Screening Research: Guidelines From the NBSTRN
Published in
Pediatrics, February 2014
DOI 10.1542/peds.2013-2271
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

There is broad recognition of the need for population-based research to assess the safety and efficacy of newborn screening (NBS) for conditions that are not on current panels. However, prospective population-based research poses significant ethical, regulatory, and logistical challenges. In the context of NBS, there have been a variety of approaches that address parental decision-making in pilot studies of new screening tests or conditions. This article presents an ethical and legal analysis of the role of parental permission by the Bioethics and Legal Work Group of the Newborn Screening Translational Research Network created under a contract from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Circumstances are outlined in which a waiver of documentation of permission or a waiver of permission may be ethically and legally appropriate in the NBS context. These guidelines do not constitute American Academy of Pediatrics policy.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Unknown 50 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 40%
Social Sciences 6 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Philosophy 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 12 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 04 July 2017.
All research outputs
#6,074,366
of 34,378,656 outputs
Outputs from Pediatrics
#10,747
of 22,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,659
of 374,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatrics
#122
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,378,656 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 22,600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 47.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 374,683 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 246 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 50% of its contemporaries.