↓ Skip to main content

The utility of genetic testing in neuromuscular disease: A consensus statement from the AANEM on the clinical utility of genetic testing in diagnosis of neuromuscular disease

Overview of attention for article published in Muscle & Nerve, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
Title
The utility of genetic testing in neuromuscular disease: A consensus statement from the AANEM on the clinical utility of genetic testing in diagnosis of neuromuscular disease
Published in
Muscle & Nerve, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/mus.25387
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles D. Kassardjian, Anthony A. Amato, Andrea J. Boon, Martin K. Childers, Christopher J. Klein

Abstract

The aim of this consensus statement is to provide a recommendation from experts at the AANEM on the clinical utility of genetic testing. It is not meant to recommend or endorse any specific genetic testing methodology or algorithm. The AANEM Professional Practice Committee reached a consensus based on expert opinion on the utility of genetic testing in neuromuscular diseases and made recommendations on factors that physicians and patients should consider when deciding whether to proceed with such testing. Despite the costs of genetic testing, these tests can be both valuable and beneficial in the diagnosis and treatment of neuromuscular diseases in many situations. Summary/Discussion: AANEM believes that genetic testing and arriving at a specific molecular diagnosis is a critical step in providing high quality care to neuromuscular patients. The cost of testing should not be a deterrent, since there are important clinical, safety, psychosocial, and research benefits. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters 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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 4 33%
Other 2 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 17%
Professor 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Other 2 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 50%
Neuroscience 3 25%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 8%
Physics and Astronomy 1 8%
Engineering 1 8%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 18 November 2016.
All research outputs
#3,151,851
of 12,526,930 outputs
Outputs from Muscle & Nerve
#354
of 1,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,833
of 261,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Muscle & Nerve
#21
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,526,930 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,875 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
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 261,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.