↓ Skip to main content

Review of the Reported Measures of Clinical Validity and Clinical Utility as Arguments for the Implementation of Pharmacogenetic Testing: A Case Study of Statin-Induced Muscle Toxicity

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Review of the Reported Measures of Clinical Validity and Clinical Utility as Arguments for the Implementation of Pharmacogenetic Testing: A Case Study of Statin-Induced Muscle Toxicity
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2017.00555
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marleen E. Jansen, T. Rigter, W. Rodenburg, T. M. C. Fleur, E. J. F. Houwink, M. Weda, Martina C. Cornel

Abstract

Advances from pharmacogenetics (PGx) have not been implemented into health care to the expected extent. One gap that will be addressed in this study is a lack of reporting on clinical validity and clinical utility of PGx-tests. A systematic review of current reporting in scientific literature was conducted on publications addressing PGx in the context of statins and muscle toxicity. Eighty-nine publications were included and information was selected on reported measures of effect, arguments, and accompanying conclusions. Most authors report associations to quantify the relationship between a genetic variation an outcome, such as adverse drug responses. Conclusions on the implementation of a PGx-test are generally based on these associations, without explicit mention of other measures relevant to evaluate the test's clinical validity and clinical utility. To gain insight in the clinical impact and select useful tests, additional outcomes are needed to estimate the clinical validity and utility, such as cost-effectiveness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 20%
Student > Master 9 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 12 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 12 February 2020.
All research outputs
#5,802,780
of 23,313,051 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#2,327
of 16,764 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,195
of 318,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#37
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,313,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,764 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 318,098 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.