↓ Skip to main content

Ethical considerations in prenatal testing: Genomic testing and medical uncertainty

Overview of attention for article published in Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
Title
Ethical considerations in prenatal testing: Genomic testing and medical uncertainty
Published in
Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, October 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.siny.2017.10.001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anastasia Richardson, Kelly E. Ormond

Abstract

Prenatal diagnostic testing has recently progressed from karyotype to routinely available chromosomal microarray, and the potential for fetal whole exome sequencing, both through invasive diagnostic testing and, in some cases, non-invasive prenatal testing. These tests bring beneficence through providing a higher diagnostic yield, often with lower risks of miscarriage than previously available testing, but also raise the question of harms related to an increase in uncertain and unknown results. Some parents-to-be report a desire to learn as much information as possible prenatally, and there may be beneficence in providing them with this information. However, the potential uncertainty these tests may create may raise anxiety and may complicate pregnancy decision-making for both patients and providers. This article reviews current prenatal technologies and the growing research on the clinical and ethical aspects of uncertainty as it relates to expanding prenatal testing options.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 19%
Student > Bachelor 16 16%
Other 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Researcher 6 6%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 28 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 31 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 November 2019.
All research outputs
#3,249,193
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine
#76
of 629 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,749
of 335,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 629 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 335,664 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.