↓ Skip to main content

A risk–benefit analysis of factor V Leiden testing to improve pregnancy outcomes: a case study of the capabilities of decision modeling in genomics

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics in Medicine, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
A risk–benefit analysis of factor V Leiden testing to improve pregnancy outcomes: a case study of the capabilities of decision modeling in genomics
Published in
Genetics in Medicine, November 2012
DOI 10.1038/gim.2012.139
Pubmed ID
Authors

Preeti S. Bajaj, David L. Veenstra

Abstract

Purpose:We sought to assess the benefits, risks, and personal utility of factor V Leiden mutation testing to improve pregnancy outcomes and to assess the utility of decision-analytic modeling for complex outcomes in genomics.Methods:We developed a model to evaluate factor V Leiden testing among women with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss, including heparin therapy during pregnancy in mutation-positive women. Outcomes included venous thromboembolism, major bleeds, pregnancy loss, maternal mortality, and quality-adjusted life-years.Results:Factor V Leiden testing in a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 women led to 7 fewer venous thromboembolic events, 90 fewer pregnancy losses, and an increase of 17 major bleeding events. Small improvements in quality-adjusted life-years were largely attributable to reduced mortality but also to improvements in health-related quality of life. However, sensitivity analyses indicate large variance in results due to data uncertainty. Furthermore, the complexity of outcomes limited our ability to fully capture the repercussions of testing in the quality-adjusted life-year measure.Conclusion:Factor V Leiden testing involves tradeoffs between clinical and personal utility, and additional effectiveness data are needed for heparin use to prevent pregnancy loss. Decision-analytic methods offer somewhat limited value in assessing these tradeoffs, suggesting that evaluation of complex outcomes will require novel approaches to appropriately capture patient-centered outcomes.Genet Med 2013:15(5):374-381.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 38 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 13%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 15 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 14 36%
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 24 March 2015.
All research outputs
#7,959,659
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#1,953
of 2,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,888
of 198,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,943 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.0. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 198,383 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.