↓ Skip to main content

Showing Value in Newborn Screening: Challenges in Quantifying the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Early Detection of Phenylketonuria and Cystic Fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Healthcare, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Showing Value in Newborn Screening: Challenges in Quantifying the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Early Detection of Phenylketonuria and Cystic Fibrosis
Published in
Healthcare, November 2015
DOI 10.3390/healthcare3041133
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott D Grosse

Abstract

Decision makers sometimes request information on the cost savings, cost-effectiveness, or cost-benefit of public health programs. In practice, quantifying the health and economic benefits of population-level screening programs such as newborn screening (NBS) is challenging. It requires that one specify the frequencies of health outcomes and events, such as hospitalizations, for a cohort of children with a given condition under two different scenarios-with or without NBS. Such analyses also assume that everything else, including treatments, is the same between groups. Lack of comparable data for representative screened and unscreened cohorts that are exposed to the same treatments following diagnosis can result in either under- or over-statement of differences. Accordingly, the benefits of early detection may be understated or overstated. This paper illustrates these common problems through a review of past economic evaluations of screening for two historically significant conditions, phenylketonuria and cystic fibrosis. In both examples qualitative judgments about the value of prompt identification and early treatment to an affected child were more influential than specific numerical estimates of lives or costs saved.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Psychology 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 17 34%
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 16 January 2018.
All research outputs
#17,779,578
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from Healthcare
#1,826
of 2,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,888
of 282,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Healthcare
#12
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,503 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. 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 282,581 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.