| Title |
Detection of critical congenital heart defects: Review of contributions from prenatal and newborn screening
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Seminars in Perinatology, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1053/j.semperi.2015.03.007 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Richard S. Olney, Elizabeth C. Ailes, Marci K. Sontag |
| Abstract |
In 2011, statewide newborn screening programs for critical congenital heart defects began in the United States, and subsequently screening has been implemented widely. In this review, we focus on data reports and collection efforts related to both prenatal diagnosis and newborn screening. Defect-specific, maternal, and geographic factors are associated with variations in prenatal detection, so newborn screening provides a population-wide safety net for early diagnosis. A new web-based repository is collecting information on newborn screening program policies, quality indicators related to screening programs, and specific case-level data on infants with these defects. Birth defects surveillance programs also collect data about critical congenital heart defects, particularly related to diagnostic timing, mortality, and services. Individuals from state programs, federal agencies, and national organizations will be interested in these data to further refine algorithms for screening in normal newborn nurseries, neonatal intensive care settings, and other special populations; and ultimately to evaluate the impact of screening on outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 128 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 12% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 27 | 21% |
| Unknown | 40 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Unknown | 47 | 36% |
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 14 May 2015.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Seminars in Perinatology
#682
of 887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,728
of 279,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Seminars in Perinatology
#13
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 279,166 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.