↓ Skip to main content

Comparative effectiveness of next generation genomic sequencing for disease diagnosis: Design of a randomized controlled trial in patients with colorectal cancer/polyposis syndromes

Overview of attention for article published in Contemporary Clinical Trials, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
Title
Comparative effectiveness of next generation genomic sequencing for disease diagnosis: Design of a randomized controlled trial in patients with colorectal cancer/polyposis syndromes
Published in
Contemporary Clinical Trials, July 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.cct.2014.06.016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos J. Gallego, Caroline S. Bennette, Patrick Heagerty, Bryan Comstock, Martha Horike-Pyne, Fuki Hisama, Laura M. Amendola, Robin L. Bennett, Michael O. Dorschner, Peter Tarczy-Hornoch, William M. Grady, S. Malia Fullerton, Susan B. Trinidad, Dean A. Regier, Deborah A. Nickerson, Wylie Burke, Donald L. Patrick, Gail P. Jarvik, David L. Veenstra

Abstract

Whole exome and whole genome sequencing are applications of next generation sequencing transforming clinical care, but there is little evidence whether these tests improve patient outcomes or if they are cost effective compared to current standard of care. These gaps in knowledge can be addressed by comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. We designed a randomized controlled trial that incorporates these research methods to evaluate whole exome sequencing compared to usual care in patients being evaluated for hereditary colorectal cancer and polyposis syndromes. Approximately 220 patients will be randomized and followed for 12months after return of genomic findings. Patients will receive findings associated with colorectal cancer in a first return of results visit, and findings not associated with colorectal cancer (incidental findings) during a second return of results visit. The primary outcome is efficacy to detect mutations associated with these syndromes; secondary outcomes include psychosocial impact, cost-effectiveness and comparative costs. The secondary outcomes will be obtained via surveys before and after each return visit. The expected challenges in conducting this randomized controlled trial include the relatively low prevalence of genetic disease, difficult interpretation of some genetic variants, and uncertainty about which incidental findings should be returned to patients. The approaches utilized in this study may help guide other investigators in clinical genomics identify useful outcome measures and strategies to address comparative effectiveness questions about the clinical implementation of genomic sequencing in clinical care.

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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 88 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Student > Master 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 7 8%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 22 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 4%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 27 29%
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 23 July 2014.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Contemporary Clinical Trials
#1,598
of 1,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,627
of 242,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Contemporary Clinical Trials
#15
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,967 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 242,257 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.