↓ Skip to main content

Improving the efficiency and relevance of evidence-based recommendations in the era of whole-genome sequencing: an EGAPP methods update

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics in Medicine, September 2012
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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
Improving the efficiency and relevance of evidence-based recommendations in the era of whole-genome sequencing: an EGAPP methods update
Published in
Genetics in Medicine, September 2012
DOI 10.1038/gim.2012.106
Pubmed ID
Authors

David L. Veenstra, Margaret Piper, James E. Haddow, Stephen G. Pauker, Roger Klein, Carolyn Sue Richards, Sean R. Tunis, Benjamin Djulbegovic, Michael Marrone, Jennifer S. Lin, Alfred O. Berg, Ned Calonge

Abstract

To provide an update on recent revisions to Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) methods designed to improve efficiency, and an assessment of the implications of whole genome sequencing for evidence-based recommendation development. Improvements to the EGAPP approach include automated searches for horizon scanning, a quantitative ranking process for topic prioritization, and the development of a staged evidence review and evaluation process. The staged process entails (i) triaging tests with minimal evidence of clinical validity, (ii) using and updating existing reviews, (iii) evaluating clinical validity prior to analytic validity or clinical utility, (iv) using decision modeling to assess potential clinical utility when direct evidence is not available. EGAPP experience to date suggests the following approaches will be critical for the development of evidence based recommendations in the whole genome sequencing era: (i) use of triage approaches and frameworks to improve efficiency, (ii) development of evidence thresholds that consider the value of further research, (iii) incorporation of patient preferences, and (iv) engagement of diverse stakeholders. The rapid advances in genomics present a significant challenge to traditional evidence based medicine, but also an opportunity for innovative approaches to recommendation development.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 67 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 26%
Student > Master 12 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Professor 4 6%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 11 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 14%
Computer Science 3 4%
Engineering 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 13 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 October 2021.
All research outputs
#2,542,703
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#881
of 2,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,967
of 186,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#7
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,943 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 186,940 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.