↓ Skip to main content

Exploring neurologists’ perspectives on the return of next generation sequencing results to their patients: a needed step in the development of guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, September 2018
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 (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Exploring neurologists’ perspectives on the return of next generation sequencing results to their patients: a needed step in the development of guidelines
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12910-018-0320-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thierry Hurlimann, Iris Jaitovich Groisman, Béatrice Godard

Abstract

The use of Next Generation Sequencing such as Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) is a promising step towards a better understanding and treatment of neurological diseases. WGS can result into unexpected information (incidental findings, IFs), and information with uncertain clinical significance. In the context of a Genome Canada project on 'Personalized Medicine in the Treatment of Epilepsy', we intended to address these challenges surveying neurologists' opinions about the type of results that should be returned, and their professional responsibility toward recontacting patients regarding new discovered mutations. Potential participants were contacted through professional organizations or direct invitations. A total of 204 neurologists were recruited. Fifty nine percent indicated that to be conveyed, WGS results should have a demonstrated clinical utility for diagnosis, prognosis or treatment. Yet, 41% deemed appropriate to return results without clinical utility, when they could impact patients' reproductive decisions, or on patients' request. Current use of targeted genetic testing and age of patients influenced respondents' answers. Respondents stated that analysis of genomics data resulting from WGS should be limited to the genes likely to be relevant for the patient's specific medical condition (69%), so as to limit IFs. Respondents felt responsible to recontact patients and inform them about newly discovered mutations related to the medical condition that triggered the test (75%) for as long as they are following up on the patient (55%). Finally, 53.5% of the respondents felt responsible to recontact and inform patients of clinically significant, newly discovered IFs. Our results show the importance of formulating professional guidelines sensitive to the various - and sometimes opposite - viewpoints that may prevail within a same community of practice, as well as flexible so as to be attuned to the characteristics of the neurological conditions that triggered a WGS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 14 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 16 47%
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 01 October 2018.
All research outputs
#4,049,448
of 23,105,443 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#417
of 1,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,271
of 342,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#10
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,105,443 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 1,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 342,007 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.