↓ Skip to main content

Preconception risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
Preconception risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010849.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Norita Hussein, Stephen F Weng, Joe Kai, Jos Kleijnen, Nadeem Qureshi

Abstract

Globally, about five per cent of children are born with congenital or genetic disorders. The most common autosomal recessive conditions are thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease, with higher carrier rates in specific patient populations. Identifying and counselling couples at genetic risk of the conditions before pregnancy enables them to make fully informed reproductive decisions, with some of these choices not being available if genetic counselling is only offered in an antenatal setting. To assess the effectiveness of systematic preconception genetic risk assessment to improve reproductive outcomes in women and their partners who are identified as carriers of thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease in healthcare settings when compared to usual care. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Registers. In addition, we searched for all relevant trials from 1970 (or the date at which the database was first available if after 1970) to date using electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO), clinical trial databases (National Institutes of Health, Clinical Trials Search portal of the World Health Organization, metaRegister of controlled clinical trials), and hand searching of key journals and conference abstract books from 1998 to date (European Journal of Human Genetics, Genetics in Medicine, Journal of Community Genetics). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles, reviews and guidelines and also contacted subject experts in the field to request any unpublished or other published trials.Date of latest search of the registers: 25 June 2015.Date of latest search of all other sources: 10 December 2014. Any randomised or quasi-randomised control trials (published or unpublished) comparing reproductive outcomes of systematic preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease when compared to usual care. We identified 19 papers, describing 13 unique trials which were potentially eligible for inclusion in the review. However, after assessment, no randomised controlled trials of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease were found. No randomised controlled trials of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease were found. As no randomised controlled trials of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, or Tay-Sachs disease were found for inclusion in this review, the research evidence for current policy recommendations is limited to non-randomised studies.Information from well-designed, adequately powered, randomised trials is desirable in order to make more robust recommendations for practice. However, such trials must also consider the legal, ethical, and cultural barriers to implementation of preconception genetic risk assessment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 97 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 24%
Researcher 19 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 14 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 5 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Psychology 9 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 8%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 5 5%

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 12 March 2018.
All research outputs
#10,105,601
of 12,633,553 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,436
of 10,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,127
of 234,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#251
of 268 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,633,553 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 10,385 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 234,450 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 268 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.