↓ Skip to main content

Clinical Integration of Next Generation Sequencing: Coverage and Reimbursement Challenges

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, January 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#20 of 738)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Clinical Integration of Next Generation Sequencing: Coverage and Reimbursement Challenges
Published in
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, January 2021
DOI 10.1111/jlme.12160
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patricia A. Deverka, Jennifer C. Dreyfus

Abstract

Public and private payers face complex decisions regarding whether, when, and how to cover and reimburse for next generation sequencing (NGS)-based tests. Yet a predictable reimbursement pathway is critical both for patient access and incentives to provide the market with better clinical evidence. While preliminary data suggests that payers will use similar evidentiary standards as those used to evaluate established molecular diagnostic tests, the volume and complexity of information generated by NGS raises a host of additional considerations for payers that are specific to this technology.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 69 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 15 21%
Student > Master 11 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 10 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 14%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 6%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 15 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 01 January 2016.
All research outputs
#419,634
of 12,550,366 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#20
of 738 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,896
of 212,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#3
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,550,366 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 738 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 212,733 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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.