↓ Skip to main content

Diagnosis of Cystic Fibrosis in Screened Populations

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pediatrics, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
90 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
Title
Diagnosis of Cystic Fibrosis in Screened Populations
Published in
Journal of Pediatrics, February 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.09.065
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip M Farrell, Terry B White, Michelle S Howenstine, Anne Munck, Richard B Parad, Margaret Rosenfeld, Olaf Sommerburg, Frank J Accurso, Jane C Davies, Michael J Rock, Don B Sanders, Michael Wilschanski, Isabelle Sermet-Gaudelus, Hannah Blau, Silvia Gartner, Susanna A McColley

Abstract

Cystic fibrosis (CF) can be difficult to diagnose, even when newborn screening (NBS) tests yield positive results. This challenge is exacerbated by the multitude of NBS protocols, misunderstandings about screening vs diagnostic tests, and the lack of guidelines for presumptive diagnoses. There is also confusion regarding the designation of age at diagnosis. To improve diagnosis and achieve standardization in definitions worldwide, the CF Foundation convened a committee of 32 experts with a mission to develop clear and actionable consensus guidelines on diagnosis of CF with an emphasis on screened populations, especially the newborn population. A comprehensive literature review was performed with emphasis on relevant articles published during the past decade. After reviewing the common screening protocols and outcome scenarios, 14 of 27 consensus statements were drafted that apply to screened populations. These were approved by 80% or more of the participants. It is recommended that all diagnoses be established by demonstrating dysfunction of the CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) channel, initially with a sweat chloride test and, when needed, potentially with newer methods assessing membrane transport directly, such as intestinal current measurements. Even in babies with 2 CF-causing mutations detected via NBS, diagnosis must be confirmed by demonstrating CFTR dysfunction. The committee also recommends that the latest classifications identified in the Clinical and Functional Translation of CFTR project [http://www.cftr2.org/index.php] should be used to aid with CF diagnosis. Finally, to avoid delays in treatment, we provide guidelines for presumptive diagnoses and recommend how to determine the age of diagnosis.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 137 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 19%
Student > Master 13 9%
Other 12 9%
Researcher 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Other 28 20%
Unknown 36 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 1%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 36 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 February 2017.
All research outputs
#19,947,956
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pediatrics
#10,282
of 12,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#307,005
of 424,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pediatrics
#140
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,458 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 424,929 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.