↓ Skip to main content

Genetic Testing for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Not Indicated Now

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Ophthalmology, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
22 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.
Article details
Title
Genetic Testing for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Not Indicated Now
Published in
JAMA Ophthalmology, May 2015
DOI 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.0369
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Age-related macular degeneration is a very common condition that is caused by a complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors. It is likely that, in the future, genetic testing will allow physicians to achieve better clinical outcomes by administering specific treatments to patients based on their genotypes. However, improved outcomes for genotyped patients have not yet been demonstrated in a prospective clinical trial, and as a result, the costs and risks of routine genetic testing currently outweigh the benefits for patients with age-related macular degeneration.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 27%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Professor 1 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 5 23%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 19 June 2015.
All research outputs
#3,857,732
of 28,561,469 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Ophthalmology
#1,488
of 4,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,673
of 282,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Ophthalmology
#15
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,561,469 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,204 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 282,950 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.