| Title |
Comparative Effectiveness Research in Cancer Genomics and Precision Medicine: Current Landscape and Future Prospects
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1093/jnci/djt108 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Naoko I. Simonds, Muin J. Khoury, Sheri D. Schully, Katrina Armstrong, Wendy F. Cohn, David A. Fenstermacher, Geoffrey S. Ginsburg, Katrina A.B. Goddard, William A. Knaus, Gary H. Lyman, Scott D. Ramsey, Jianfeng Xu, Andrew N. Freedman |
| Abstract |
A major promise of genomic research is information that can transform health care and public health through earlier diagnosis, more effective prevention and treatment of disease, and avoidance of drug side effects. Although there is interest in the early adoption of emerging genomic applications in cancer prevention and treatment, there are substantial evidence gaps that are further compounded by the difficulties of designing adequately powered studies to generate this evidence, thus limiting the uptake of these tools into clinical practice. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to generate evidence on the "real-world" effectiveness compared with existing standards of care so informed decisions can be made to improve health care. Capitalizing on funding opportunities from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the National Cancer Institute funded seven research teams to conduct CER in genomic and precision medicine and sponsored a workshop on CER on May 30, 2012, in Bethesda, Maryland. This report highlights research findings from those research teams, challenges to conducting CER, the barriers to implementation in clinical practice, and research priorities and opportunities in CER in genomic and precision medicine. Workshop participants strongly emphasized the need for conducting CER for promising molecularly targeted therapies, developing and supporting an integrated clinical network for open-access resources, supporting bioinformatics and computer science research, providing training and education programs in CER, and conducting research in economic and decision modeling. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 38% |
| Unknown | 8 | 62% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 54% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 23% |
| Scientists | 2 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 127 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 25 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 12% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 25 | 19% |
| Unknown | 22 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 25 | 19% |
| Unknown | 27 | 20% |
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 01 January 2016.
All research outputs
#3,336,139
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
#2,104
of 7,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,682
of 205,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
#14
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 7,844 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 205,420 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.