↓ Skip to main content

A Systematic Review on the Existing Screening Pathways for Lynch Syndrome Identification

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, September 2017
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 (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
A Systematic Review on the Existing Screening Pathways for Lynch Syndrome Identification
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00243
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alessia Tognetto, Maria Benedetta Michelazzo, Giovanna Elisa Calabró, Brigid Unim, Marco Di Marco, Walter Ricciardi, Roberta Pastorino, Stefania Boccia

Abstract

Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common hereditary colon cancer syndrome, accounting for 3-5% of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases, and it is associated with the development of other cancers. Early detection of individuals with LS is relevant, since they can take advantage of life-saving intensive care surveillance. The debate regarding the best screening policy, however, is far from being concluded. This prompted us to conduct a systematic review of the existing screening pathways for LS. We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, and SCOPUS online databases for the existing screening pathways for LS. The eligibility criteria for inclusion in this review required that the studies evaluated a structured and permanent screening pathway for the identification of LS carriers. The effectiveness of the pathways was analyzed in terms of LS detection rate. We identified five eligible studies. All the LS screening pathways started from CRC cases, of which three followed a universal screening approach. Concerning the laboratory procedures, the pathways used immunohistochemistry and/or microsatellite instability testing. If the responses of the tests indicated a risk for LS, the genetic counseling, performed by a geneticist or a genetic counselor, was mandatory to undergo DNA genetic testing. The overall LS detection rate ranged from 0 to 5.2%. This systematic review reported different existing pathways for the identification of LS patients. Although current clinical guidelines suggest to test all the CRC cases to identify LS cases, the actual implementation of pathways for LS identification has not been realized. Large-scale screening programs for LS have the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality for CRC, but coordinated efforts in educating all key stakeholders and addressing public needs are still required.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Postgraduate 5 12%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 16 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 15 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 26 May 2018.
All research outputs
#4,735,145
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,703
of 10,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,525
of 315,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#27
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,223 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 315,999 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 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 72% of its contemporaries.