↓ Skip to main content

Consensus for genes to be included on cancer panel tests offered by UK genetics services: guidelines of the UK Cancer Genetics Group

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Genetics, April 2018
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
22 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Consensus for genes to be included on cancer panel tests offered by UK genetics services: guidelines of the UK Cancer Genetics Group
Published in
Journal of Medical Genetics, April 2018
DOI 10.1136/jmedgenet-2017-105188
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy Taylor, Angela F Brady, Ian M Frayling, Helen Hanson, Marc Tischkowitz, Clare Turnbull, Lucy Side

Abstract

Genetic testing for hereditary cancer predisposition has evolved rapidly in recent years with the discovery of new genes, but there is much debate over the clinical utility of testing genes for which there are currently limited data regarding the degree of associated cancer risk. To address the discrepancies that have arisen in the provision of these tests across the UK, the UK Cancer Genetics Group facilitated a 1-day workshop with representation from the majority of National Health Service (NHS) clinical genetics services. Using a preworkshop survey followed by focused discussion of genes without prior majority agreement for inclusion, we achieved consensus for panels of cancer genes with sufficient evidence for clinical utility, to be adopted by all NHS genetics services. To support consistency in the delivery of these tests and advice given to families across the country, we also developed management proposals for individuals who are found to have pathogenic mutations in these genes. However, we fully acknowledge that the decision regarding what test is most appropriate for an individual family rests with the clinician, and will depend on factors including specific phenotypic features and the family structure.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 106 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 17%
Other 16 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Master 12 11%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Other 21 20%
Unknown 17 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 35 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Philosophy 1 <1%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 19 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 14 August 2019.
All research outputs
#813,027
of 15,882,155 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Genetics
#59
of 2,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,352
of 229,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Genetics
#1
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,882,155 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,396 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 229,459 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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.