↓ Skip to main content

Cancer family history triage: a key step in the decision to offer screening and genetic testing

Overview of attention for article published in Familial Cancer, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Cancer family history triage: a key step in the decision to offer screening and genetic testing
Published in
Familial Cancer, December 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10689-012-9589-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Brennan, Oonagh Claber, Tracey Brennan

Abstract

The Macmillan Cancer Family History Service in Teesside has provided genetic risk assessment for individuals with a personal or family history of cancer since 2004. We sought to examine the effect of risk assessment on patient management, with particular emphasis on referral for clinical screening and selection of families for tertiary genetics assessment. The degree of concordance between the initial risk assignment (using diagnoses reported by the family) and final risk assignment (using confirmed diagnoses) was no greater than 72.3 % in 1,363 breast cancer families; a similar effect was seen in 764 colorectal cancer families (77.3 %). Clinically important risk reassignment occurred at the three key stages in the risk assessment pathway. Overall, genetic risk was reassigned in almost 30 % of colorectal families and 20 % of breast cancer families, resulting in a change in screening recommendation and/or referral for tertiary genetic assessment. Careful, detailed family history assessment, with confirmation of reported diagnoses where it may affect risk assignment, is an important process for the point of view of patient management and resource allocation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 26%
Student > Master 6 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Engineering 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 2 7%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 December 2012.
All research outputs
#13,677,179
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from Familial Cancer
#276
of 558 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,933
of 278,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Familial Cancer
#9
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 558 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 278,890 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.