↓ Skip to main content

Judging the Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome Assessment Tools to Guide Future Tool Development: The use of Clinimetrics as Opposed to Psychometrics

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Judging the Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome Assessment Tools to Guide Future Tool Development: The use of Clinimetrics as Opposed to Psychometrics
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fped.2017.00204
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip M. Westgate, Enrique Gomez-Pomar

Abstract

In the face of the current Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS) epidemic, there is considerable variability in the assessment and management of infants with NAS. In this manuscript, we particularly focus on NAS assessment, with special attention given to the popular Finnegan Neonatal Abstinence Score (FNAS). A major instigator of the problem of variable practices is that multiple modified versions of the FNAS exist and continue to be proposed, including shortened versions. Furthermore, the validity of such assessment tools has been questioned, and as a result, the need for better tools has been suggested. The ultimate purpose of this manuscript, therefore, is to increase researchers' and clinicians' understanding on how to judge the usefulness of NAS assessment tools in order to guide future tool development and to reduce variable practices. In short, we suggest that judgment of NAS assessment tools should be made on a clinimetrics viewpoint as opposed to psychometrically. We provide examples, address multiple issues that must be considered, and discuss future tool development. Furthermore, we urge researchers and clinicians to come together, utilizing their knowledge and experience, to assess the utility and practicality of existing assessment tools and to determine if one or more new or modified tools are needed with the goal of increased agreement on the assessment of NAS in practice.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 7 20%
Unknown 10 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 23%
Philosophy 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 11 31%
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 28 September 2017.
All research outputs
#18,572,036
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#3,398
of 6,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,220
of 318,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#45
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,061 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 318,397 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 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.