| Title |
Non-invasive Prenatal Testing: Technologies, Clinical Assays and Implementation Strategies for Women’s Healthcare Practitioners
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Genetic Medicine Reports, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40142-013-0010-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amy Swanson, Amy J. Sehnert, Sucheta Bhatt |
| Abstract |
The field of prenatal genetic testing has exploded with new non-invasive technologies and test options in the past several years. It is challenging for women's healthcare providers to keep up with the multitude of publications and provide patients with the most accurate and up-to-date information possible regarding prenatal testing. In this article, we examine the sequencing technologies that provide the framework for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and review the major North American NIPT clinical validation studies published in 2011 and 2012. This paper also compares and contrasts the commercially available non-invasive prenatal tests in the United States, discusses clinical implementation recommendations from professional societies and highlights considerations for genetic counseling. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Vietnam | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 144 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 29 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 9% |
| Other | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 30 | 20% |
| Unknown | 22 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 35 | 23% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 31 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 15 | 10% |
| Unknown | 22 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 16 January 2018.
All research outputs
#2,067,827
of 24,255,619 outputs
Outputs from Current Genetic Medicine Reports
#8
of 119 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,376
of 220,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Genetic Medicine Reports
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,255,619 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 119 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 220,067 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 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.