| Title |
Cost-effectiveness of Population Screening for BRCA Mutations in Ashkenazi Jewish Women Compared With Family History–Based Testing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1093/jnci/dju380 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ranjit Manchanda, Rosa Legood, Matthew Burnell, Alistair McGuire, Maria Raikou, Kelly Loggenberg, Jane Wardle, Saskia Sanderson, Sue Gessler, Lucy Side, Nyala Balogun, Rakshit Desai, Ajith Kumar, Huw Dorkins, Yvonne Wallis, Cyril Chapman, Rohan Taylor, Chris Jacobs, Ian Tomlinson, Uziel Beller, Usha Menon, Ian Jacobs |
| Abstract |
Population-based testing for BRCA1/2 mutations detects the high proportion of carriers not identified by cancer family history (FH)-based testing. We compared the cost-effectiveness of population-based BRCA testing with the standard FH-based approach in Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) women. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 Kingdom | 2 | 18% |
| United States | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 73% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 64% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 18% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 230 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 227 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 38 | 17% |
| Researcher | 32 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 11% |
| Other | 18 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 16 | 7% |
| Other | 51 | 22% |
| Unknown | 50 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 73 | 32% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 25 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 19 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 6% |
| Psychology | 11 | 5% |
| Other | 33 | 14% |
| Unknown | 56 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 109. 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 August 2018.
All research outputs
#385,678
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
#249
of 7,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,415
of 369,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
#1
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,848 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 369,600 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.