| Title |
Optimizing use of existing prenatal genetic tests: Screening and diagnostic testing for aneuploidy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Seminars in Perinatology, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1053/j.semperi.2018.07.014 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katie Stoll, Mary E Norton |
| Abstract |
Screening and diagnostic testing for detection of fetal aneuploidy has been an integral part of prenatal care for over three decades. The recent introduction of new technologies, such as cell free DNA (cfDNA) screening and preimplantation genetic screening, has created increased complexity for obstetrical care providers. Inconsistencies among the professional society recommendations have caused confusion and disparities in practice. As we work to responsibly incorporate new technologies, clear guidelines with consensus among relevant professional societies are needed. In January of 2017, a workshop was convened during the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Pregnancy Meeting. Representatives from many stakeholder groups were present with the goal to develop a framework for introduction of new genetic tests into clinical practice. This paper provides consensus recommendations from this workshop on the use of existing prenatal screening and diagnostic testing for aneuploidy. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 10 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 December 2022.
All research outputs
#4,721,995
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Seminars in Perinatology
#173
of 887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,681
of 341,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Seminars in Perinatology
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 341,301 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.