↓ Skip to main content

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2017

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (JNCCN), December 2016
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 (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
301 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
Title
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2017
Published in
Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (JNCCN), December 2016
DOI 10.6004/jnccn.2017.0003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary B. Daly, Robert Pilarski, Michael Berry, Saundra S. Buys, Meagan Farmer, Susan Friedman, Judy E. Garber, Noah D. Kauff, Seema Khan, Catherine Klein, Wendy Kohlmann, Allison Kurian, Jennifer K. Litton, Lisa Madlensky, Sofia D. Merajver, Kenneth Offit, Tuya Pal, Gwen Reiser, Kristen Mahoney Shannon, Elizabeth Swisher, Shaveta Vinayak, Nicoleta C. Voian, Jeffrey N. Weitzel, Myra J. Wick, Georgia L. Wiesner, Mary Dwyer, Susan Darlow

Abstract

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian provide recommendations for genetic testing and counseling for hereditary cancer syndromes and risk management recommendations for patients who are diagnosed with a syndrome. Guidelines focus on syndromes associated with an increased risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer. The NCCN Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. The NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and most recent recommendations regarding risk management for carriers of moderately penetrant genetic mutations associated with breast and/or ovarian cancer.

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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 19%
Student > Master 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 18 24%
Unknown 7 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 39%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 7 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 09 April 2019.
All research outputs
#2,131,691
of 14,602,028 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (JNCCN)
#180
of 966 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,359
of 377,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (JNCCN)
#4
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,602,028 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 966 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. 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 377,538 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.