↓ Skip to main content

Newborn screening for galactosaemia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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.
Title
Newborn screening for galactosaemia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012272.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rohollah Lak, Bahareh Yazdizadeh, Majid Davari, Mojtaba Nouhi, Roya Kelishadi

Abstract

Classical galactosaemia is an autosomal recessive inborn error of metabolism caused by a deficiency of the enzyme galactose-1-phosphate uridyltransferase. This is a rare and potentially lethal condition that classically presents in the first week of life once milk feeds have commenced. Affected babies may present with any or all of the following: cataracts; fulminant liver failure; prolonged jaundice; or Escherichia coli sepsis. Once the diagnosis is suspected, feeds containing galactose must be stopped immediately and replaced with a soya-based formula. The majority of babies will recover, however a number will not survive. There are long-term complications of galactosaemia, despite treatment, including learning disabilities and female infertility. It has been postulated that galactosaemia could be detected on newborn screening and this would prevent the immediate severe liver dysfunction and sepsis. To assess whether there is evidence that newborn screening for galactosaemia prevents or reduces mortality and morbidity and improves clinical outcomes in affected neonates and the quality of life in older children. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals and conference abstract books. We also searched online trials registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.Date of the most recent search of Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Group's Trials Register: 18 December 2017.Date of the most recent search of additional resources: 11 October 2017. Randomised controlled studies and controlled clinical studies, published or unpublished comparing the use of any newborn screening test to diagnose infants with galactosaemia and presenting a comparison between a screened population versus a non-screened population. No studies of newborn screening for galactosaemia were found. No studies were identified for inclusion in the review. We were unable to identify any eligible studies for inclusion in this review and hence it is not possible to draw any conclusions based on randomised controlled studies. However, we are aware of uncontrolled studies which support the efficacy of newborn screening for galactosaemia. There are a number of reviews and economic analyses of non-trial literature suggesting that screening is appropriate.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 26%
Unspecified 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Other 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 40%
Unspecified 11 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 12%
Psychology 5 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Other 8 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 30 January 2018.
All research outputs
#3,219,594
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,920
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,608
of 383,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#142
of 227 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 383,848 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 227 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.