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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Whole-Genome Sequencing in Newborn Screening—Attitudes and Opinions of Bulgarian Pediatricians and Geneticists
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Public Health, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00308 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Georgi Iskrov, Stefan Ivanov, Stephen Wrenn, Rumen Stefanov |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to assess the attitudes and opinions on the potential use of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) in conjunction with the traditional newborn screening (NBS). We conducted an online survey among pediatricians and geneticists from Bulgaria. The study was based on the concept of non-selective WGS for all newborns and analysis of all genes. In total, 120 out of 299 invited participants completed the survey, with an overall response rate of 40.1%. While half of the pediatricians surveyed supported population-based non-selective WGS in NBS, 65.2% of the geneticists expressed concerns. Most participants underlined that ethical issues were as important as medical ones and called for a stricter protection of affected individuals against any abuse of their personal data. Extensive genetic counseling and psychological support to families were mentioned as key elements in this potential activity. Nevertheless, both pediatricians and geneticists considered that NBS in Bulgaria could be further developed, with selective WGS being suggested as a potential option. While non-selective WGS for all newborns is not currently perceived as feasible, pediatricians and geneticists do believe that selective WGS could strengthen current NBS programs. Cross-border project collaborations may set the stage for generating experience and evidence on these complex issues. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 19% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 15% |
| Researcher | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 8 | 31% |
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 19 December 2017.
All research outputs
#17,920,654
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#5,095
of 10,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#305,395
of 437,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#61
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,238 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 437,492 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.