↓ Skip to main content

The health system impact of false positive newborn screening results for medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency: a cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
Title
The health system impact of false positive newborn screening results for medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency: a cohort study
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13023-016-0391-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria D. Karaceper, Pranesh Chakraborty, Doug Coyle, Kumanan Wilson, Jonathan B. Kronick, Steven Hawken, Christine Davies, Marni Brownell, Linda Dodds, Annette Feigenbaum, Deshayne B. Fell, Scott D. Grosse, Astrid Guttmann, Anne-Marie Laberge, Aizeddin Mhanni, Fiona A. Miller, John J. Mitchell, Meranda Nakhla, Chitra Prasad, Cheryl Rockman-Greenberg, Rebecca Sparkes, Brenda J. Wilson, Beth K. Potter, on behalf of the Canadian Inherited Metabolic Diseases Research Network

Abstract

There is no consensus in the literature regarding the impact of false positive newborn screening results on early health care utilization patterns. We evaluated the impact of false positive newborn screening results for medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency (MCADD) in a cohort of Ontario infants. The cohort included all children who received newborn screening in Ontario between April 1, 2006 and March 31, 2010. Newborn screening and diagnostic confirmation results were linked to province-wide health care administrative datasets covering physician visits, emergency department visits, and inpatient hospitalizations, to determine health service utilization from April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2012. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were used to compare those with false positive results for MCADD to those with negative newborn screening results, stratified by age at service use. We identified 43 infants with a false positive newborn screening result for MCADD during the study period. These infants experienced significantly higher rates of physician visits (IRR: 1.42) and hospitalizations (IRR: 2.32) in the first year of life relative to a screen negative cohort in adjusted analyses. Differences in health services use were not observed after the first year of life. The higher use of some health services among false positive infants during the first year of life may be explained by a psychosocial impact of false positive results on parental perceptions of infant health, and/or by differences in underlying health status. Understanding the impact of false positive newborn screening results can help to inform newborn screening programs in designing support and education for families. This is particularly important as additional disorders are added to expanded screening panels, yielding important clinical benefits for affected children but also a higher frequency of false positive findings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 80 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 9%
Other 18 22%
Unknown 18 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 10%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 22 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 09 February 2016.
All research outputs
#8,121,704
of 25,791,495 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#1,167
of 3,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,362
of 408,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#19
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,791,495 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,189 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 408,217 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.