↓ Skip to main content

Incidental genetic findings in randomized clinical trials: recommendations from the Genomics and Randomized Trials Network (GARNET)

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Medicine, January 2013
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 (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Incidental genetic findings in randomized clinical trials: recommendations from the Genomics and Randomized Trials Network (GARNET)
Published in
Genome Medicine, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/gm411
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ebony B Bookman, Corina Din-Lovinescu, Bradford B Worrall, Teri A Manolio, Siiri N Bennett, Cathy Laurie, Daniel B Mirel, Kimberly F Doheny, Garnet L Anderson, Kate Wehr, Richard Weinshilboum, Donna T Chen

Abstract

Recommendations and guidance on how to handle the return of genetic results to patients have offered limited insight into how to approach incidental genetic findings in the context of clinical trials. This paper provides the Genomics and Randomized Trials Network (GARNET) recommendations on incidental genetic findings in the context of clinical trials, and discusses the ethical and practical issues considered in formulating our recommendations. There are arguments in support of as well as against returning incidental genetic findings in clinical trials. For instance, reporting incidental findings in clinical trials may improve the investigator-participant relationship and the satisfaction of participation, but it may also blur the line between clinical care and research. The issues of whether and how to return incidental genetic findings, including the costs of doing so, should be considered when developing clinical trial protocols. Once decided, plans related to sharing individual results from the aim(s) of the trial, as well as incidental findings, should be discussed explicitly in the consent form. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and other study-specific governing bodies should be part of the decision as to if, when, and how to return incidental findings, including when plans in this regard are being reconsidered.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 41 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 22%
Other 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Professor 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Other 12 27%
Unknown 4 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 13%
Philosophy 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 5 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 05 February 2013.
All research outputs
#2,342,609
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#537
of 1,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,592
of 286,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#28
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,466 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 286,180 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 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 57% of its contemporaries.