↓ Skip to main content

Ethical Issues in Contemporary Clinical Genetics

Overview of attention for article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Innovations, Quality & Outcomes, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
Title
Ethical Issues in Contemporary Clinical Genetics
Published in
Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Innovations, Quality & Outcomes, May 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2018.03.005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Genna Braverman, Zachary E. Shapiro, Jonathan A. Bernstein

Abstract

As genetic sequencing capabilities become more powerful and costs decline, the reach of genomics is expanding beyond research laboratories to the wards, outpatient clinics, and, with the marketing of direct-to-consumer testing services, patients' homes. Increasingly, patients receiving various diagnoses-from cancer to cardiomyopathy-can reasonably expect to have conversations with their providers about indications for genetic testing. In this dynamic context, a grasp of the ethical principles and history underlying clinical genetics will provide clinicians with the tools to guide their practice and help patients navigate complex medical-psychosocial terrain. This article provides an overview of the salient ethical concerns pertaining to clinical genetics. The subject is approached with an emphasis on clinical practice, but consideration is also given to research. The review is organized around the temporal and informational sequence of issues commonly arising during the course of pretesting, testing, and posttesting phases of patient care. Drawing from medical, legal, and historical perspectives, this review covers the following topics: (1) informed consent, (2) return of results, and (3) privacy and confidentiality, and intends to equip readers with an appropriate foundation to apply ethical principles to genetic testing paradigms with an understanding of the contextual landscape against which these situations occur.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 20%
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Other 8 8%
Researcher 7 7%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 32 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 30 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Computer Science 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 38 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 25 December 2023.
All research outputs
#6,878,604
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Innovations, Quality & Outcomes
#122
of 331 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,003
of 341,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Innovations, Quality & Outcomes
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 331 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 341,279 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.