↓ Skip to main content

Refining the structure and content of clinical genomic reports

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part C, Seminars in Medical Genetics, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Refining the structure and content of clinical genomic reports
Published in
American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part C, Seminars in Medical Genetics, March 2014
DOI 10.1002/ajmg.c.31395
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael O Dorschner, Laura M Amendola, Brian H Shirts, Lesli Kiedrowski, Joseph Salama, Adam S Gordon, Stephanie M Fullerton, Peter Tarczy-Hornoch, Peter H Byers, Gail P Jarvik

Abstract

To effectively articulate the results of exome and genome sequencing we refined the structure and content of molecular test reports. To communicate results of a randomized control trial aimed at the evaluation of exome sequencing for clinical medicine, we developed a structured narrative report. With feedback from genetics and non-genetics professionals, we developed separate indication-specific and incidental findings reports. Standard test report elements were supplemented with research study-specific language, which highlighted the limitations of exome sequencing and provided detailed, structured results, and interpretations. The report format we developed to communicate research results can easily be transformed for clinical use by removal of research-specific statements and disclaimers. The development of clinical reports for exome sequencing has shown that accurate and open communication between the clinician and laboratory is ideally an ongoing process to address the increasing complexity of molecular genetic testing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 22%
Student > Master 6 19%
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 13%
Computer Science 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 7 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 01 January 2015.
All research outputs
#6,374,015
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part C, Seminars in Medical Genetics
#158
of 567 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,806
of 235,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part C, Seminars in Medical Genetics
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 567 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 235,363 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 54% of its contemporaries.