↓ Skip to main content

Pitfalls in mutational testing and reporting of common KIT and PDGFRA mutations in gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Genetics, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Pitfalls in mutational testing and reporting of common KIT and PDGFRA mutations in gastrointestinal stromal tumors
Published in
BMC Medical Genetics, July 2010
DOI 10.1186/1471-2350-11-106
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sabine Merkelbach-Bruse, Wolfgang Dietmaier, Laszlo Füzesi, Andreas Gaumann, Florian Haller, Julia Kitz, Antje Krohn, Gunhild Mechtersheimer, Roland Penzel, Hans-Ulrich Schildhaus, Regine Schneider-Stock, Ronald Simon, Eva Wardelmann

Abstract

Mutation analysis of KIT and PDGFRA genes in gastrointestinal stromal tumors is gaining increasing importance for prognosis of GISTs and for prediction of treatment response. Several groups have identified specific mutational subtypes in KIT exon 11 associated with an increased risk of metastatic disease whereas GISTs with PDGFRA mutations often behave less aggressive. Furthermore, in advanced GIST disease with proven KIT exon 9 mutation the doubled daily dose of 800 mg imatinib increases the progression free survival and is now recommended both in the European and the American Guidelines. In Germany, there are still no general rules how to perform mutational analysis.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Luxembourg 1 5%
United States 1 5%
Unknown 20 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 41%
Other 4 18%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Professor 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 55%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 23%
Philosophy 2 9%
Unspecified 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 1 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 August 2010.
All research outputs
#2,018,181
of 3,635,048 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Genetics
#164
of 321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,935
of 51,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Genetics
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,635,048 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 321 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 51,753 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.