| Title |
What do the new American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guidelines mean for the provision of non-invasive prenatal genetic screening?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1080/01443615.2017.1291597 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Megan Allyse, Myra J. Wick |
| Abstract |
In 2016, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics updated their practice guidelines on the provision of non-invasive prenatal genomic screening using cell-free DNA. This article lays out the changes to the guidelines and their implications for clinical practice. Impact Statement What is already known on this subject.cfDNA is being translated into prenatal clinical practice at a rapid pace. Various professional societies have attempted to provide ongoing guidance for this translation. What the results of this study add.The latest recommendations from the American College of Medical Genetics offer the most recent practice guidelines for how to implement cfDNA in clinical practice. What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research.This summary offers concise suggestions for practitioners on implementing the new guidelines. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 2 | 40% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 32% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 26% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 09 April 2017.
All research outputs
#14,280,554
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
#661
of 1,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,382
of 323,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
#4
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,444 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 323,961 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 51% 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 has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.