↓ Skip to main content

Clinical pharmacogenetics implementation consortium guideline (CPIC) for CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genotypes and dosing of tricyclic antidepressants: 2016 update

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
487 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
358 Mendeley
Title
Clinical pharmacogenetics implementation consortium guideline (CPIC) for CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genotypes and dosing of tricyclic antidepressants: 2016 update
Published in
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/cpt.597
Pubmed ID
Authors

JK Hicks, K Sangkuhl, JJ Swen, VL Ellingrod, DJ Müller, K Shimoda, Bishop, ED Kharasch, TC Skaar, A Gaedigk, HM Dunnenberger, TE Klein, KE Caudle, JC Stingl

Abstract

CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 polymorphisms affect the exposure, efficacy and safety of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), with some drugs being affected by CYP2D6 only (e.g., nortriptyline and desipramine) and others by both polymorphic enzymes (e.g., amitriptyline, clomipramine, doxepin, imipramine, and trimipramine). Evidence is presented for CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genotype-directed dosing of TCAs. This document is an update to the 2012 Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guideline for CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 Genotypes and Dosing of Tricyclic Antidepressants. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 358 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Unknown 357 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 43 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 12%
Researcher 40 11%
Student > Master 37 10%
Other 30 8%
Other 57 16%
Unknown 109 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 65 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 63 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 62 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 4%
Neuroscience 9 3%
Other 27 8%
Unknown 116 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,517,527
of 24,577,646 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
#223
of 4,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,612
of 435,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
#2
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,577,646 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 435,718 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.