↓ Skip to main content

The utility of genetic testing in neuromuscular disease: A consensus statement from the AANEM on the clinical utility of genetic testing in diagnosis of neuromuscular disease

Overview of attention for article published in Muscle & Nerve, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
The utility of genetic testing in neuromuscular disease: A consensus statement from the AANEM on the clinical utility of genetic testing in diagnosis of neuromuscular disease
Published in
Muscle & Nerve, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/mus.25387
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles D. Kassardjian, Anthony A. Amato, Andrea J. Boon, Martin K. Childers, Christopher J. Klein, AANEM Professional Practice Committee

Abstract

The aim of this consensus statement is to provide a recommendation from experts at the AANEM on the clinical utility of genetic testing. It is not meant to recommend or endorse any specific genetic testing methodology or algorithm. The AANEM Professional Practice Committee reached a consensus based on expert opinion on the utility of genetic testing in neuromuscular diseases and made recommendations on factors that physicians and patients should consider when deciding whether to proceed with such testing. Despite the costs of genetic testing, these tests can be both valuable and beneficial in the diagnosis and treatment of neuromuscular diseases in many situations. Summary/Discussion: AANEM believes that genetic testing and arriving at a specific molecular diagnosis is a critical step in providing high quality care to neuromuscular patients. The cost of testing should not be a deterrent, since there are important clinical, safety, psychosocial, and research benefits. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 4 20%
Other 3 15%
Researcher 3 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 15%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 3 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 35%
Neuroscience 3 15%
Engineering 2 10%
Physics and Astronomy 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 4 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 18 November 2016.
All research outputs
#7,013,006
of 24,571,708 outputs
Outputs from Muscle & Nerve
#760
of 2,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,263
of 275,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Muscle & Nerve
#12
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,571,708 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,998 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 275,309 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.