↓ Skip to main content
What is this page? Embed badge

Integrating stakeholder perspectives into the translation of cell-free fetal DNA testing for aneuploidy

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Medicine, June 2012
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 (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Summary Blogs Twitter Dimensions citations
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
Integrating stakeholder perspectives into the translation of cell-free fetal DNA testing for aneuploidy
Published in
Genome Medicine, June 2012
DOI 10.1186/gm348
Pubmed ID
22720727
Authors

Lauren C Sayres, Megan Allyse, Mildred K Cho

Abstract

The translation of novel genomic technologies from bench to bedside enjoins the comprehensive consideration of the perspectives of all stakeholders who stand to influence, or be influenced by, the translational course. Non-invasive prenatal aneuploidy testing that utilizes cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) circulating in maternal blood is one example of an innovative technology that promises significant benefits for its intended end users; however, it is currently uncertain whether it will achieve widespread clinical implementation. We conducted qualitative interviews with 18 diverse stakeholders in this domain, including prospective users of the technology and healthcare personnel, researchers and developers, and experts in social, legal, and regulatory aspects of genetic technology, and a pilot survey of 62 obstetric healthcare providers. Analysis of interview and survey data was combined with a review of the proceedings of a full-day, multidisciplinary conference on the topic and published scientific and ethics literature surrounding this and other relevant technologies.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 6%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 48 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 35%
Librarian 5 10%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Professor 2 4%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 11 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 31%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 10%
Philosophy 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 14 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 04 March 2013.
All research outputs
#3,019,496
of 22,671,366 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#667
of 1,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,692
of 164,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#5
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,671,366 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,432 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 164,035 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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 68% of its contemporaries.

This page is provided by Altmetric.