↓ Skip to main content

Individual genetic and genomic research results and the tradition of informed consent: exploring US review board guidance

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Ethics, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Individual genetic and genomic research results and the tradition of informed consent: exploring US review board guidance
Published in
Journal of Medical Ethics, February 2012
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2011-100273
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Genomic research is challenging the tradition of informed consent. Genomic researchers in the USA, Canada and parts of Europe are encouraged to use informed consent to address the prospect of disclosing individual research results (IRRs) to study participants. In the USA, no national policy exists to direct this use of informed consent, and it is unclear how local institutional review boards (IRBs) may want researchers to respond.

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 34 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 %
United States 2 6%
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 31 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Other 8 24%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 8 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 15 February 2013.
All research outputs
#13,666,571
of 22,669,724 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Ethics
#2,561
of 3,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,381
of 156,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Ethics
#31
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,669,724 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,397 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 156,362 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.