↓ Skip to main content

Toward an Ethically Sensitive Implementation of Noninvasive Prenatal Screening in the Global Context

Overview of attention for article published in Hastings Center Report, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Toward an Ethically Sensitive Implementation of Noninvasive Prenatal Screening in the Global Context
Published in
Hastings Center Report, March 2017
DOI 10.1002/hast.690
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessica Mozersky, Vardit Ravitsky, Rayna Rapp, Marsha Michie, Subhashini Chandrasekharan, Megan Allyse

Abstract

Noninvasive prenatal screening using cell-free DNA, which analyzes placental DNA circulating in maternal blood to provide information about fetal chromosomal disorders early in pregnancy and without risk to the fetus, has been hailed as a potential "paradigm shift" in prenatal genetic screening. Commercial provision of cell-free DNA screening has contributed to a rapid expansion of the tests included in the screening panels. The tests can include screening for sex chromosome anomalies, rare subchromosomal microdeletions and aneuploidies, and most recently, the entire fetal genome. The benefits of this screening tool are generally framed, by both providers and commercial laboratories, as enhancing reproductive autonomy and choice by providing an earlier, simpler, and more accurate screening while potentially reducing the need for invasive follow-up testing. The majority of the literature has explored these issues empirically or conceptually from a European or North American vantage point, one that assumes normative priorities such as individual reproductive autonomy and the clinical availability of maternal health care or prenatal screening programs within which cell-free DNA screening is offered. While its implementation has raised both challenges and opportunities, very little is known about real-world experiences and the implications of the rapid introduction of cell-free DNA screening outside of North America and Europe, especially in low- and middle-income countries. To begin addressing this gap in knowledge, we organized a four-day international workshop to explore the ethical, legal, social, economic, clinical, and practical implications of the global expansion of cell-free DNA screening. We describe eight key insights that arose from the workshop.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 17 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 18%
Social Sciences 7 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 16 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 June 2021.
All research outputs
#4,860,649
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Hastings Center Report
#200
of 695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,736
of 326,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Hastings Center Report
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 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 695 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 326,468 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 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them