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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Consenting for current genetic research: is Canadian practice adequate?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-15-80 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Iris Jaitovich Groisman, Nathalie Egalite, Beatrice Godard |
| Abstract |
In order to ensure an adequate and ongoing protection of individuals participating in scientific research, the impacts of new biomedical technologies, such as Next Generation Sequencing (NGS), need to be assessed. In this light, a necessary reexamination of the ethical and legal structures framing research could lead to requisite changes in informed consent modalities. This would have implications for Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), who bear the responsibility of guaranteeing that participants are verifiably informed, and in sufficient detail, to understand the reality of genetic research as it is practiced now. Current literature allowed the identification of key emergent themes related to the consent process when NGS was used in a research setting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 50% |
| India | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Librarian | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 23% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 12 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 November 2014.
All research outputs
#13,416,718
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#699
of 993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,975
of 362,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#13
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 993 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 362,064 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.