↓ Skip to main content

Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 incidentally revealed in a biobank research study: experiences from re-contacting mutation carriers and relatives

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Community Genetics, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 incidentally revealed in a biobank research study: experiences from re-contacting mutation carriers and relatives
Published in
Journal of Community Genetics, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12687-017-0341-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin P. Nilsson, Monica Emmertz, Ulf Kristoffersson, Åke Borg, Christer Larsson, Martin Rehn, Christof Winter, Lao H. Saal, Yvonne Brandberg, Niklas Loman

Abstract

Once an incidental finding (IF) is discovered in the course of genomic research, the researchers are faced with the question of whether or not that finding should be reported back to the study participant. A large number of hypothetical studies and policy documents on this issue have been published, but there are very few empirical studies to inform the bioethics debate. Within a biobank research study of somatic mutations in breast carcinomas, ten germline BRCA1/2 mutations were incidentally detected. After thorough discussions within a group of experts, the mutation carriers (n = 7) or relatives of deceased carriers (n = 3) were re-contacted and informed about the findings. Eight out of ten accepted to receive the information and underwent confirmatory testing. One year later, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with three of the study participants. All of them felt that BRCA mutations discovered in the course of research should be reported back to the individual study participants. In this paper, we report our step-by-step experiences of the re-contacting process. We hope that our detailed reporting will be helpful for other researchers and clinicians that are faced with similar situations. The results of our study lend empirical support to opinion that IFs that meet the three baseline criteria of analytic validity, clinical significance, and actionability should be reported back to the individual study participants.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 22%
Student > Master 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Librarian 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 8 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 8 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 23 June 2018.
All research outputs
#4,016,887
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Genetics
#73
of 369 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,353
of 328,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Genetics
#7
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 369 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 328,606 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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 63% of its contemporaries.