↓ Skip to main content

Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2015

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (JNCCN), February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
143 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2015
Published in
Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (JNCCN), February 2016
DOI 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0018
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary B. Daly, Robert Pilarski, Jennifer E. Axilbund, Michael Berry, Saundra S. Buys, Beth Crawford, Meagan Farmer, Susan Friedman, Judy E. Garber, Seema Khan, Catherine Klein, Wendy Kohlmann, Allison Kurian, Jennifer K. Litton, Lisa Madlensky, P. Kelly Marcom, Sofia D. Merajver, Kenneth Offit, Tuya Pal, Huma Rana, Gwen Reiser, Mark E. Robson, Kristen Mahoney Shannon, Elizabeth Swisher, Nicoleta C. Voian, Jeffrey N. Weitzel, Alison Whelan, Myra J. Wick, Georgia L. Wiesner, Mary Dwyer, Rashmi Kumar, Susan Darlow

Abstract

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian provide recommendations for genetic testing and counseling and risk assessment and management for hereditary cancer syndromes. Guidelines focus on syndromes associated with an increased risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer and are intended to assist with clinical and shared decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize major discussion points of the 2015 NCCN Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian panel meeting. Major discussion topics this year included multigene testing, risk management recommendations for less common genetic mutations, and salpingectomy for ovarian cancer risk reduction. The panel also discussed revisions to genetic testing criteria that take into account ovarian cancer histology and personal history of pancreatic cancer.

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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 19%
Other 6 13%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 11 23%
Unknown 3 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 45%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 19%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 4 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 February 2016.
All research outputs
#10,907,722
of 17,475,439 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (JNCCN)
#786
of 1,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,941
of 349,872 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (JNCCN)
#17
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,475,439 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,242 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 349,872 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.