↓ Skip to main content

Comprehensive Versus Targeted Genetic Testing in Children with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Cardiology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Comprehensive Versus Targeted Genetic Testing in Children with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Published in
Pediatric Cardiology, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00246-016-1358-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nathan D. Bales, Nicole M. Johnson, Daniel P. Judge, Anne M. Murphy

Abstract

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a genetic disease of the sarcomere that can be found in both children and adults and is associated with many causative mutations. In children who are not the index case of HCM in their families, current recommendations call only for targeted genetic testing for familial mutations. However, clinical experience suggests that de novo mutations are possible, as are mutations inherited from apparently an unaffected parent. A chart review was conducted of all patients who received HCM genetic testing at Johns Hopkins from 2004 to 2013. In total, 239 patient charts were analyzed for personal and familial genetic findings. Eighty-one patients with sarcomere gene mutations were identified, of which 66 had a clinical diagnosis of HCM. Importantly, eight patients had >1 pathogenic or likely pathogenic mutation, including six patients who were diagnosed with HCM as children (18 or younger). In this analysis, when a sarcomere mutation is identified in a family, the likelihood of a child with HCM having >1 mutation is 25 % (6/24), compared to 4.8 % (2/42) for adults. The large number of children with multiple mutations suggests that broad panel rather than targeted genetic testing should be considered in HCM presenting during childhood even if the child is not the index case.

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 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 5 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Other 3 11%
Student > Master 3 11%
Professor 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 9 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 11%
Chemistry 1 4%
Unknown 10 37%
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 04 September 2017.
All research outputs
#20,313,158
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Cardiology
#1,096
of 1,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,105
of 298,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Cardiology
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,407 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 298,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.