↓ Skip to main content

Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal Version 1.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (JNCCN), August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
243 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
Title
Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal Version 1.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.
Published in
Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (JNCCN), August 2016
DOI 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0108
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dawn Provenzale, Samir Gupta, Dennis J Ahnen, Travis Bray, Jamie A Cannon, Gregory Cooper, Donald S David, Dayna S Early, Deborah Erwin, James M Ford, Francis M Giardiello, William Grady, Amy L Halverson, Stanley R Hamilton, Heather Hampel, Mohammad K Ismail, Jason B Klapman, David W Larson, Audrey J Lazenby, Patrick M Lynch, Robert J Mayer, Reid M Ness, Scott E Regenbogen, Niloy Jewel Samadder, Moshe Shike, Gideon Steinbach, David Weinberg, Mary Dwyer, Susan Darlow

Abstract

This is a focused update highlighting the most current NCCN Guidelines for diagnosis and management of Lynch syndrome. Lynch syndrome is the most common cause of hereditary colorectal cancer, usually resulting from a germline mutation in 1 of 4 DNA mismatch repair genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2), or deletions in the EPCAM promoter. Patients with Lynch syndrome are at an increased lifetime risk, compared with the general population, for colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, and other cancers, including of the stomach and ovary. As of 2016, the panel recommends screening all patients with colorectal cancer for Lynch syndrome and provides recommendations for surveillance for early detection and prevention of Lynch syndrome-associated cancers.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 76 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 16%
Other 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 18 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 21 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 December 2016.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (JNCCN)
#1,264
of 1,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,201
of 381,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (JNCCN)
#16
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,733 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.8. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 381,614 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.