| Title |
RAS testing of colorectal carcinoma—a guidance document from the Association of Clinical Pathologists Molecular Pathology and Diagnostics Group
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Pathology, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202467 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Newton ACS Wong, David Gonzalez, Manuel Salto-Tellez, Rachel Butler, Salvador J Diaz-Cano, Mohammad Ilyas, William Newman, Emily Shaw, Philippe Taniere, Shaun V Walsh |
| Abstract |
Analysis of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) tissue for KRAS codon 12 or 13 mutations to guide use of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy is now considered mandatory in the UK. The scope of this practice has been recently extended because of data indicating that NRAS mutations and additional KRAS mutations also predict for poor response to anti-EGFR therapy. The following document provides guidance on RAS (i.e., KRAS and NRAS) testing of CRC tissue in the setting of personalised medicine within the UK and particularly within the NHS. This guidance covers issues related to case selection, preanalytical aspects, analysis and interpretation of such RAS testing. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nigeria | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ecuador | 2 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 88 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 18 | 19% |
| Researcher | 17 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 14 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 47 | 49% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Unknown | 17 | 18% |
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 20 August 2014.
All research outputs
#13,178,355
of 22,760,687 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Pathology
#2,557
of 3,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,911
of 227,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Pathology
#20
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,760,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,924 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 227,393 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 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.