↓ 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

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
126 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 Randomised controlled studies and controlled clinical studies, published or unpublished comparing the use of any newborn screening test to diagnose infants with galactosaemia and presenting a comparison between a screened population versus a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.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 126 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 19%
Researcher 22 17%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 37 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 6%
Psychology 7 6%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 44 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 January 2018.
All research outputs
#17,032,385
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11,467
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#272,265
of 450,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#213
of 244 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 450,968 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 244 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.