↓ Skip to main content

Documento de consenso sobre la implementación de la secuenciación masiva de nueva generación en el diagnóstico genético de la predisposición hereditaria al cáncer

Overview of attention for article published in Medicina Clínica (ScienceDirect), July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Documento de consenso sobre la implementación de la secuenciación masiva de nueva generación en el diagnóstico genético de la predisposición hereditaria al cáncer
Published in
Medicina Clínica (ScienceDirect), July 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.medcli.2017.12.010
Pubmed ID
Authors

José Luis Soto, Ignacio Blanco, Orland Díez, Javier García Planells, Isabel Lorda, Gert Matthijs, Mercedes Robledo, Erika Souche, Conxi Lázaro

Abstract

Genetic diagnosis of hereditary cancer syndromes offers the opportunity to establish more effective predictive and preventive measures for the patient and their families. The ultimate objective is to decrease cancer morbidity and mortality in high genetic risk families. Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) offers an important improvement in the efficiency of genetic diagnosis, allowing an increase in diagnostic yield with a substantial reduction in response times and economic costs. Consequently, the implementation of this new technology is a great opportunity for improvement in the clinical management of affected families. The aim of these guidelines is to establish a framework of useful recommendations for planned and controlled implementation of NGS in the context of hereditary cancer. These will help to consolidate the strengths and opportunities offered by this technology, and minimise the weaknesses and threats which may derive from its use. The recommendations of international societies have been adapted to our environment, taking the Spanish context into account at organisational and juridical levels. Forty-one statements are grouped under six headings: clinical and diagnostic utility, informed consent and genetic counselling pre-test and post-test, validation of analytical procedures, results report, management of information and distinction between research and clinical context. This guide has been developed by the Spanish Association of Human Genetics (AEGH), the Spanish Society of Laboratory Medicine (SEQC-ML) and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 23%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Chemical Engineering 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 11 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 February 2018.
All research outputs
#10,295,617
of 16,135,689 outputs
Outputs from Medicina Clínica (ScienceDirect)
#692
of 1,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,570
of 372,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicina Clínica (ScienceDirect)
#23
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,135,689 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,405 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 372,456 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.