↓ Skip to main content

ACOG Committee Opinion No. 727: Cascade Testing: Testing Women for Known Hereditary Genetic Mutations Associated With Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, January 2018
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
ACOG Committee Opinion No. 727: Cascade Testing: Testing Women for Known Hereditary Genetic Mutations Associated With Cancer
Published in
Obstetrics & Gynecology, January 2018
DOI 10.1097/aog.0000000000002457
Pubmed ID
Abstract

"Cascade testing" refers to the performance of genetic counseling and testing in blood relatives of individuals who have been identified with specific genetic mutations. Testing protocols and other interventions may save lives and improve health and quality of life for these family members. Obstetrician-gynecologists should know who is eligible for cascade testing and should use all available resources to ensure that cascade testing is offered and occurs in a timely manner. Despite the clear health benefits for specific populations and individuals, obstetrician-gynecologists should be aware of the potential barriers to cascade testing and should know which options can help patients overcome those barriers. Such barriers, however, may be overcome with health care provider awareness and participation in local and state initiatives to improve implementation of cascade testing. Resources (available within federal and state agencies, professional societies, and in advocacy and community groups) are critical to the successful implementation of cascade testing. This Committee Opinion focuses specifically on cascade testing and the role of the obstetrician-gynecologist in clinical and public health efforts to increase identification of women with hereditary cancer syndromes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 16%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 7 22%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 10 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 February 2018.
All research outputs
#549,891
of 12,448,635 outputs
Outputs from Obstetrics & Gynecology
#510
of 5,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,120
of 372,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Obstetrics & Gynecology
#25
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,448,635 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,909 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 372,368 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 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.