Newborn Screening in the DMV Area
2019
- 43Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage43
- Abstract Views43
Poster Description
The vast majority of children in the United States undergo newborn screening shortly after birth, making it a remarkably successful public health initiative. Though a Recommended Uniform Screening Panel (RUSP) has been developed and continues to be updated, comprised of both a core conditions panel and a secondary targets panel, its implementation is not required. Each jurisdiction ultimately decides which conditions to include on its newborn screen (NBS), leading to considerable variation across the country. Here, we assessed the panels in Maryland, the District of Columbia (DC) and Virginia. We considered the differences between the three and compared each panel to the RUSP. Importantly, we also investigated why these differences exist. We found that though all three included a significant proportion of the core conditions panel on their NBS, none included the entire panel. When the secondary targets were considered, we found that both Maryland and DC again included many of the conditions, though not all. Virginia did not include any secondary target conditions. Maryland and DC also included conditions that were absent from both the core conditions and secondary targets panels to their NBS. We identified technical constraints and testing optimization as the main factors contributing to the size of Virginia's NBS as well as to the group of conditions it includes. Continued research is needed to identify the contributing factors in both Maryland and DC. Additionally, the reasons for including conditions not currently on the RUSP in both these jurisdictions remain to be determined.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know