↓ Skip to main content

Meeting Patients’ Right to the Correct Diagnosis: Ongoing International Initiatives on Undiagnosed Rare Diseases and Ethical and Social Issues

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, September 2018
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
109 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
Meeting Patients’ Right to the Correct Diagnosis: Ongoing International Initiatives on Undiagnosed Rare Diseases and Ethical and Social Issues
Published in
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, September 2018
DOI 10.3390/ijerph15102072
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The time required to reach a correct diagnosis is a key concern for rare disease (RD) patients. Diagnostic delay can be intolerably long, often described as an "odyssey" and, for some, a diagnosis may remain frustratingly elusive. The International Rare Disease Research Consortium proposed, as ultimate goal for 2017⁻2027, to enable all people with a suspected RD to be diagnosed within one year of presentation, if the disorder is known. Subsequently, unsolved cases would enter a globally coordinated diagnostic and research pipeline. In-depth analysis of the genotype through next generation sequencing, together with a standardized in-depth phenotype description and sophisticated high-throughput approaches, have been applied as diagnostic tools to increase the chance of a timely and accurate diagnosis. The success of this approach is evident in the Orphanet database. From 2010 to March 2017 over 600 new RDs and roughly 3600 linked genes have been described and identified. However, combination of -omics and phenotype data, as well as international sharing of this information, has raised ethical concerns. Values to be assessed include not only patient autonomy but also family implications, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, solidarity and reciprocity, which must be respected and promoted and, at the same time, balanced among each other. In this work we suggest that, to maximize patients' involvement in the search for a diagnosis and identification of new causative genes, undiagnosed patients should have the possibility to: (1) actively participate in the description of their phenotype; (2) choose the level of visibility of their profile in matchmaking databases; (3) express their preferences regarding return of new findings, in particular which level of Variant of Unknown Significance (VUS) significance should be considered relevant to them. The quality of the relationship between individual patients and physicians, and between the patient community and the scientific community, is critically important for optimizing the use of available data and enabling international collaboration in order to provide a diagnosis, and the attached support, to unsolved cases. The contribution of patients to collecting and coding data comprehensively is critical for efficient use of data downstream of data collection.

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.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 109 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 15%
Student > Master 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 48 44%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 51 47%
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 23 May 2024.
All research outputs
#4,165,585
of 31,715,120 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
#7,019
of 33,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,632
of 369,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
#133
of 487 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,715,120 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 33,972 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 369,155 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 487 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 72% of its contemporaries.