↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER decision aid for the selection of secondary findings from genomic sequencing: a randomized clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics in Medicine, April 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
37 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER decision aid for the selection of secondary findings from genomic sequencing: a randomized clinical trial
Published in
Genetics in Medicine, April 2020
DOI 10.1038/s41436-019-0702-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yvonne Bombard, Marc Clausen, Salma Shickh, Chloe Mighton, Selina Casalino, Theresa H.M. Kim, Sarah M. Muir, Lindsay Carlsson, Nancy Baxter, Adena Scheer, Christine Elser, Andrea Eisen, Seema Panchal, Tracy Graham, Melyssa Aronson, Carolyn Piccinin, Talia Mancuso, Kara Semotiuk, Michael Evans, June C. Carroll, Kenneth Offit, Mark Robson, Jada G. Hamilton, Emily Glogowski, Kasmintan Schrader, Raymond H. Kim, Jordan Lerner-Ellis, Kevin E. Thorpe, Andreas Laupacis, Yvonne Bombard, Susan Armel, Melyssa Aronson, Nancy Baxter, Ahmed Bayoumi, Ken Bond, June C. Carroll, Timothy Caulfield, Marc Clausen, Tammy Clifford, Iris Cohn, Irfan Dhalla, Craig C. Earle, Andrea Eisen, Christine Elser, Michael Evans, Tracy Graham, Emily Glogowski, Jada G. Hamilton, Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai, Monika Kastner, Raymond H. Kim, Andreas Laupacis, Jordan Lerner-Ellis, Michelle Mujoomdar, Kenneth Offit, Seema Panchal, Mark E. Robson, Adena Scheer, Stephen W. Scherer, Kasmintan Schrader, Terrence Sullivan, Kevin E. Thorpe

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 22%
Other 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Researcher 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 8 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Unspecified 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 9 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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 13 June 2021.
All research outputs
#603,267
of 21,328,171 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#203
of 2,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,872
of 429,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#9
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,328,171 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,659 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 429,882 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 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.