↓ Skip to main content

Incidental Findings from Clinical Genome‐Wide Sequencing: A Review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Genetic Counseling, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
Incidental Findings from Clinical Genome‐Wide Sequencing: A Review
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling, May 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10897-013-9604-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Z. Lohn, S. Adam, P. H. Birch, J. M. Friedman

Abstract

There are several unresolved challenges associated with the clinical application of genome-wide sequencing technologies. One of the most discussed issues is incidental findings (IF), which are defined as discoveries made as a result of genetic testing that are unrelated to the indication for the test. The discussion surrounding IF began in the context of research, which we have used to frame consideration of IF in the clinical context. There is growing consensus that analytically valid and medically actionable IF should be offered to patients, but whether and to what extent clinicians should disclose other kinds of IF is debated. While others have systematically reviewed the literature concerning genetic IF, previous reviews focus on ethical and research-related issues and do not consider the implications for the genetic counseling profession specifically. This review discusses the practical considerations, ethical concerns and genetic counseling issues related to IF, with a particular focus on clinical genome-wide sequencing. To date, the bulk of the literature with respect to IF in the clinical context consists of commentaries, reviews and case reports. There is a need for more empirical studies to provide a foundation for institutional protocols and evidence-based clinical practice standards.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Canada 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 71 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 19%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 20 27%
Unknown 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 12%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 19 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 31 July 2014.
All research outputs
#18,375,478
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#937
of 1,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,191
of 195,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#18
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 195,073 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.