↓ Skip to main content

Article

Overview of attention for book
Article
Elsevier
Attention for Chapter: Maternal Plasma DNA and RNA Sequencing for Prenatal Testing
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
88 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.
Chapter title
Maternal Plasma DNA and RNA Sequencing for Prenatal Testing
Published in
Advances in clinical chemistry, January 2016
DOI 10.1016/bs.acc.2015.12.004
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-0-12-804689-0
Authors

Tamminga, Saskia, van Maarle, Merel, Henneman, Lidewij, Oudejans, Cees B M, Cornel, Martina C, Sistermans, Erik A, Saskia Tamminga, Merel van Maarle, Lidewij Henneman, Cees B.M. Oudejans, Martina C. Cornel, Erik A. Sistermans

Abstract

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing has recently become indispensable in diagnostic testing and screening. In the prenatal setting, this type of testing is often called noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT). With a number of techniques, using either next-generation sequencing or single nucleotide polymorphism-based approaches, fetal cfDNA in maternal plasma can be analyzed to screen for rhesus D genotype, common chromosomal aneuploidies, and increasingly for testing other conditions, including monogenic disorders. With regard to screening for common aneuploidies, challenges arise when implementing NIPT in current prenatal settings. Depending on the method used (targeted or nontargeted), chromosomal anomalies other than trisomy 21, 18, or 13 can be detected, either of fetal or maternal origin, also referred to as unsolicited or incidental findings. For various biological reasons, there is a small chance of having either a false-positive or false-negative NIPT result, or no result, also referred to as a "no-call." Both pre- and posttest counseling for NIPT should include discussing potential discrepancies. Since NIPT remains a screening test, a positive NIPT result should be confirmed by invasive diagnostic testing (either by chorionic villus biopsy or by amniocentesis). As the scope of NIPT is widening, professional guidelines need to discuss the ethics of what to offer and how to offer. In this review, we discuss the current biochemical, clinical, and ethical challenges of cfDNA testing in the prenatal setting and its future perspectives including novel applications that target RNA instead of DNA.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 84 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 14%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Other 8 9%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 21 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 25 28%
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 29 September 2017.
All research outputs
#15,369,653
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from Advances in clinical chemistry
#129
of 279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,936
of 393,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in clinical chemistry
#13
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 279 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 393,648 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.