↓ Skip to main content

Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) Guideline for Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Genotype and Fluoropyrimidine Dosing: 2017 Update

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, November 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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
179 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
230 Mendeley
Title
Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) Guideline for Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Genotype and Fluoropyrimidine Dosing: 2017 Update
Published in
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, November 2017
DOI 10.1002/cpt.911
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ursula Amstutz, Linda M. Henricks, Steven M. Offer, Julia Barbarino, Jan H.M. Schellens, Jesse J. Swen, Teri E. Klein, Howard L. McLeod, Kelly E. Caudle, Robert B. Diasio, Matthias Schwab

Abstract

The purpose of this guideline is to provide information for the interpretation of clinical dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD) genotype tests so that the results can be used to guide dosing of fluoropyrimidines (5-fluorouracil and capecitabine). Detailed guidelines for the use of fluoropyrimidines, their clinical pharmacology, as well as analyses of cost-effectiveness are beyond the scope of this document. The Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC(®) ) guidelines consider the situation of patients for which genotype data are already available (updates available at https://cpicpgx.org/guidelines/guideline-for-fluoropyrimidines-and-dpyd/).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 230 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 230 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 17%
Student > Bachelor 33 14%
Researcher 31 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 11%
Student > Postgraduate 13 6%
Other 39 17%
Unknown 49 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 23%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 46 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 45 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 4%
Unspecified 5 2%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 56 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 07 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,258,775
of 15,624,287 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
#190
of 3,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,624
of 410,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
#2
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,624,287 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,350 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. 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 410,091 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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.