↓ Skip to main content

Integration of next-generation sequencing in clinical diagnostic molecular pathology laboratories for analysis of solid tumours; an expert opinion on behalf of IQN Path ASBL

Overview of attention for article published in Virchows Archiv, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
Title
Integration of next-generation sequencing in clinical diagnostic molecular pathology laboratories for analysis of solid tumours; an expert opinion on behalf of IQN Path ASBL
Published in
Virchows Archiv, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00428-016-2025-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zandra C Deans, Jose Luis Costa, Ian Cree, Els Dequeker, Anders Edsjö, Shirley Henderson, Michael Hummel, Marjolijn JL Ligtenberg, Marco Loddo, Jose Carlos Machado, Antonio Marchetti, Katherine Marquis, Joanne Mason, Nicola Normanno, Etienne Rouleau, Ed Schuuring, Keeda-Marie Snelson, Erik Thunnissen, Bastiaan Tops, Gareth Williams, Han van Krieken, Jacqueline A Hall

Abstract

The clinical demand for mutation detection within multiple genes from a single tumour sample requires molecular diagnostic laboratories to develop rapid, high-throughput, highly sensitive, accurate and parallel testing within tight budget constraints. To meet this demand, many laboratories employ next-generation sequencing (NGS) based on small amplicons. Building on existing publications and general guidance for the clinical use of NGS and learnings from germline testing, the following guidelines establish consensus standards for somatic diagnostic testing, specifically for identifying and reporting mutations in solid tumours. These guidelines cover the testing strategy, implementation of testing within clinical service, sample requirements, data analysis and reporting of results. In conjunction with appropriate staff training and international standards for laboratory testing, these consensus standards for the use of NGS in molecular pathology of solid tumours will assist laboratories in implementing NGS in clinical services.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 112 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 23 20%
Researcher 17 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 14%
Student > Master 11 10%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 15 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 33 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 20 17%

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 25 March 2020.
All research outputs
#13,852,884
of 17,362,547 outputs
Outputs from Virchows Archiv
#1,018
of 1,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,937
of 276,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virchows Archiv
#17
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,362,547 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 1,414 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 276,974 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.