↓ Skip to main content

Applying Public Health Screening Criteria: How Does Universal Newborn Screening Compare to Universal Tumor Screening for Lynch Syndrome in Adults with Colorectal Cancer?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Genetic Counseling, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Applying Public Health Screening Criteria: How Does Universal Newborn Screening Compare to Universal Tumor Screening for Lynch Syndrome in Adults with Colorectal Cancer?
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling, October 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10897-014-9769-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deborah Cragun, Rita D. DeBate, Tuya Pal

Abstract

Institutions have increasingly begun to adopt universal tumor screening (UTS) programs whereby tumors from all newly diagnosed patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) are screened to identify who should be offered germline testing for Lynch syndrome (the most common cause of hereditary CRC). Given limited information about the impact of universal screening programs to detect hereditary disease in adults, we apply criteria used to evaluate public health screening programs and compare and contrast UTS with universal newborn screening (NBS) for the purpose of examining ethical implications and anticipating potential outcomes of UTS. Both UTS and a core set of NBS conditions clearly meet most of the Wilson and Jungner screening criteria. However, many state NBS panels include additional conditions that do not meet several of these criteria, and there is currently insufficient data to confirm that UTS meets some of these criteria. Comparing UTS and NBS with regard to newer screening criteria raises additional issues that require attention for both UTS and NBS. Comparisons also highlight the importance of evaluating the implementation of genomic tests to ensure or improve their effectiveness at reducing morbidity and mortality while minimizing potential harms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 23%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 4 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 5 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 September 2016.
All research outputs
#6,182,051
of 22,919,505 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#375
of 1,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,737
of 258,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#10
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,919,505 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,152 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 258,823 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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 67% of its contemporaries.