↓ Skip to main content

Survey of medical genetic services in Italy: year 2011

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Survey of medical genetic services in Italy: year 2011
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1340-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniela Giardino, Rita Mingarelli, Tiziana Lauretti, Antonio Amoroso, Lidia Larizza, Bruno Dallapiccola

Abstract

The aim of this study was to collect information about 2011 genetic activities in Italy, with the purpose of providing guidance to the national health systems in order to improve genetic services. A web-based survey was carried out to achieve the information. Data were collected from 268 macrostructures hosting 517 services and employing 3246 persons. About 295,000 cytogenetic, 35,000 immunogenetic and 263,000 molecular genetic analyses of 902 genes were recorded. Seventy-four percent of the services were accredited with institutional bodies and 57 % were also certified according to ISO 9001 standard. Twenty percent of cytogenetic laboratories had participated in an European External Quality Assessment (EQA) while 44 % participated in a national EQA. Only 28 % of the molecular laboratories had participated in a national Cystic Fibrosis EQA. The percentage of diagnoses confirmed by genetic tests varied among disorders, ranging from 52 % for coeliac disease to 4 % for fragile X syndrome. This study highlights the need for reorganizing the Italian genetic services network, improving EQA participation and developing national plans for implementing next generation technologies. Concerted effort has to be addressed in the education of the professionals prescribing tests to improve appropriateness and to inform patients, who now have exposure to direct-to-consumer multifactorial genetic testing where clinical utility is unproven.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Unspecified 2 6%
Other 8 24%
Unknown 11 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 24%
Unspecified 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 6%
Computer Science 2 6%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 11 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,341,859
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#7,118
of 7,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,553
of 326,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#98
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,655 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 326,754 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.