↓ Skip to main content

Ethics of genetic testing and research in sport: a position statement from the Australian Institute of Sport

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Sports Medicine, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
157 tweeters
facebook
9 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
163 Mendeley
Title
Ethics of genetic testing and research in sport: a position statement from the Australian Institute of Sport
Published in
British Journal of Sports Medicine, November 2016
DOI 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096661
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicole Vlahovich, Peter A Fricker, Matthew A Brown, David Hughes

Abstract

As Australia's peak high-performance sport agency, the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) has developed this position statement to address the implications of recent advances in the field of genetics and the ramifications for the health and well-being of athletes. Genetic testing has proven of value in the practice of clinical medicine. There are, however, currently no scientific grounds for the use of genetic testing for athletic performance improvement, sport selection or talent identification. Athletes and coaches should be discouraged from using direct-to-consumer genetic testing because of its lack of validation and replicability and the lack of involvement of a medical practitioner in the process. The transfer of genetic material or genetic modification of cells for performance enhancement is gene doping and should not be used on athletes. There are, however, valid roles for genetic research and the AIS supports genetic research which aims to enhance understanding of athlete susceptibility to injury or illness. Genetic research is only to be conducted after careful consideration of a range of ethical concerns which include the provision of adequate informed consent. The AIS is committed to providing leadership in delivering an ethical framework that protects the well-being of athletes and the integrity of sport, in the rapidly changing world of genomic science.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 157 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 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Unknown 160 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 21%
Student > Bachelor 33 20%
Researcher 20 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 10%
Other 10 6%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 23 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 55 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 26 16%
Unknown 28 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 151. 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 01 August 2020.
All research outputs
#144,490
of 16,951,449 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Sports Medicine
#427
of 5,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,405
of 396,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Sports Medicine
#19
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,951,449 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 51.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 396,759 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.