↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Is there evidence that we should screen the general population for Lynch syndrome with genetic testing? A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine, February 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 (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
Title
Is there evidence that we should screen the general population for Lynch syndrome with genetic testing? A systematic review
Published in
Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine, February 2017
DOI 10.2147/pgpm.s123808
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anya E R Prince, R Jean Cadigan, Gail E Henderson, James P Evans, Michael Adams, Emmanuel Coker-Schwimmer, Dolly C Penn, Marcia Van Riper, Giselle Corbie-Smith, Daniel E Jonas

Abstract

The emerging dual imperatives of personalized medicine and technologic advances make population screening for preventable conditions resulting from genetic alterations a realistic possibility. Lynch syndrome is a potential screening target due to its prevalence, penetrance, and the availability of well-established, preventive interventions. However, while population screening may lower incidence of preventable conditions, implementation without evidence may lead to unintentional harms. We examined the literature to determine whether evidence exists that screening for Lynch-associated mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutations leads to improved overall survival, cancer-specific survival, or quality of life. Documenting evidence and gaps is critical to implementing genomic approaches in public health and guiding future research. Our 2014-2015 systematic review identified studies comparing screening with no screening in the general population, and controlled studies assessing analytic validity of targeted next-generation sequencing, and benefits or harms of interventions or screening. We conducted meta-analyses for the association between early or more frequent colonoscopies and health outcomes. Twelve studies met our eligibility criteria. No adequate evidence directly addressed the main question or the harms of screening in the general population. Meta-analyses found relative reductions of 68% for colorectal cancer incidence (relative risk: 0.32, 95% confidence interval: 0.23-0.43, three cohort studies, 590 participants) and 78% for all-cause mortality (relative risk: 0.22, 95% confidence interval: 0.09-0.56, three cohort studies, 590 participants) for early or more frequent colonoscopies among family members of people with cancer who also had an associated MMR gene mutation. Inadequate evidence exists examining harms and benefits of population-based screening for Lynch syndrome. Lack of evidence highlights the need for data that directly compare benefits and harms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 23%
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 18 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 6%
Engineering 3 5%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 19 31%
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 28 February 2017.
All research outputs
#4,904,699
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,601
of 427,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 427,196 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them