↓ Skip to main content

Practices and ethical concerns regarding preimplantation diagnosis. Who regulates preimplantation genetic diagnosis in Brazil?

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Practices and ethical concerns regarding preimplantation diagnosis. Who regulates preimplantation genetic diagnosis in Brazil?
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, January 2015
DOI 10.1590/1414-431x20144083
Pubmed ID
Authors

B.B. Damian, T.C.S. Bonetti, D.D.G. Horovitz

Abstract

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) was originally developed to diagnose embryo-related genetic abnormalities for couples who present a high risk of a specific inherited disorder. Because this technology involves embryo selection, the medical, bioethical, and legal implications of the technique have been debated, particularly when it is used to select features that are not related to serious diseases. Although several initiatives have attempted to achieve regulatory harmonization, the diversity of healthcare services available and the presence of cultural differences have hampered attempts to achieve this goal. Thus, in different countries, the provision of PGD and regulatory frameworks reflect the perceptions of scientific groups, legislators, and society regarding this technology. In Brazil, several texts have been analyzed by the National Congress to regulate the use of assisted reproduction technologies. Legislative debates, however, are not conclusive, and limited information has been published on how PGD is specifically regulated. The country requires the development of new regulatory standards to ensure adequate access to this technology and to guarantee its safe practice. This study examined official documents published on PGD regulation in Brazil and demonstrated how little direct oversight of PGD currently exists. It provides relevant information to encourage reflection on a particular regulation model in a Brazilian context, and should serve as part of the basis to enable further reform of the clinical practice of PGD in the country.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 31%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 14 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 10%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 16 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 10 January 2019.
All research outputs
#8,262,107
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
#275
of 1,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,035
of 359,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,254 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 359,538 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.