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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Guidelines for Audiologists on the Benefits and Limitations of Genetic Testing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
American Journal of Audiology, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1044/2015_aja-15-0010 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Danielle Mercer |
| Abstract |
This tutorial provides information to aid audiologists in determining when a referral for a genetics evaluation is appropriate for a patient with hearing loss. Direction is given on discussing the benefits and limitations of genetic testing with parents of children with hearing loss. Genetic patterns of inheritance are reviewed, particularly in reference to syndromic and nonsyndromic forms of hearing loss. A review of pertinent literature was performed. Audiologists are in a unique position to facilitate the investigation into the etiology of a patient's hearing loss. This is of high importance in genetic etiologies because the diagnosis can provide information on recurrence risks and other potential health implications. Suggestions are made to help audiologists recognize when a genetics referral is warranted, counsel patients and their parents about the benefits and limitations of genetic testing, and interpret genetic test results. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 27% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 18% |
| India | 1 | 9% |
| Zimbabwe | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 25% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 21% |
| Unknown | 3 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 21% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 17% |
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 08 June 2016.
All research outputs
#4,066,045
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Audiology
#193
of 816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,004
of 387,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Audiology
#4
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 816 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. 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 387,544 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.