↓ Skip to main content

Recommendations for the integration of genomics into clinical practice

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics in Medicine, May 2016
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
47 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
214 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
Title
Recommendations for the integration of genomics into clinical practice
Published in
Genetics in Medicine, May 2016
DOI 10.1038/gim.2016.17
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Bowdin, Adel Gilbert, Emma Bedoukian, Christopher Carew, Margaret P. Adam, John Belmont, Barbara Bernhardt, Leslie Biesecker, Hans T. Bjornsson, Miriam Blitzer, Lisa C.A. D’Alessandro, Matthew A. Deardorff, Laurie Demmer, Alison Elliott, Gerald L. Feldman, Ian A. Glass, Gail Herman, Lucia Hindorff, Fuki Hisama, Louanne Hudgins, A. Micheil Innes, Laird Jackson, Gail Jarvik, Raymond Kim, Bruce Korf, David H. Ledbetter, Mindy Li, Eriskay Liston, Christian Marshall, Livija Medne, M. Stephen Meyn, Nasim Monfared, Cynthia Morton, John J. Mulvihill, Sharon E. Plon, Heidi Rehm, Amy Roberts, Cheryl Shuman, Nancy B. Spinner, D. James Stavropoulos, Kathleen Valverde, Darrel J. Waggoner, Alisha Wilkens, Ronald D. Cohn, Ian D. Krantz

Abstract

The introduction of diagnostic clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) is changing the scope of practice for clinical geneticists. Many large institutions are making a significant investment in infrastructure and technology, allowing clinicians to access CGES, especially as health-care coverage begins to extend to clinically indicated genomic sequencing-based tests. Translating and realizing the comprehensive clinical benefits of genomic medicine remain a key challenge for the current and future care of patients. With the increasing application of CGES, it is necessary for geneticists and other health-care providers to understand its benefits and limitations in order to interpret the clinical relevance of genomic variants identified in the context of health and disease. New, collaborative working relationships with specialists across diverse disciplines (e.g., clinicians, laboratorians, bioinformaticians) will undoubtedly be key attributes of the future practice of clinical genetics and may serve as an example for other specialties in medicine. These new skills and relationships will also inform the development of the future model of clinical genetics training curricula. To address the evolving role of the clinical geneticist in the rapidly changing climate of genomic medicine, two Clinical Genetics Think Tank meetings were held that brought together physicians, laboratorians, scientists, genetic counselors, trainees, and patients with experience in clinical genetics, genetic diagnostics, and genetics education. This article provides recommendations that will guide the integration of genomics into clinical practice.Genet Med advance online publication 12 May 2016Genetics in Medicine (2016); doi:10.1038/gim.2016.17.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 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 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 204 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 37 17%
Other 30 14%
Student > Master 25 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 11%
Student > Bachelor 22 10%
Other 46 21%
Unknown 30 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 53 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 16%
Computer Science 7 3%
Engineering 6 3%
Other 23 11%
Unknown 36 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 95. 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 13 December 2019.
All research outputs
#259,716
of 17,360,236 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#68
of 2,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,921
of 270,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#2
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,360,236 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,328 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.7. 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 270,258 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 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 98% of its contemporaries.