A citation-based method for searching scientific literature

E Vayena, E Gourna, J Streuli, E Hafen, B Prainsack. Public Health Genomics 2012
Times Cited: 37







List of co-cited articles
183 articles co-cited >1



Times Cited
  Times     Co-cited
Similarity


A survey of UK public interest in internet-based personal genome testing.
Lynn F Cherkas, Juliette M Harris, Elana Levinson, Tim D Spector, Barbara Prainsack. PLoS One 2010
76
35

Playing a part in research? University students' attitudes to direct-to-consumer genomics.
Effy Vayena, Christian Ineichen, Elia Stoupka, Ernst Hafen. Public Health Genomics 2014
20
65

Motivations and perceptions of early adopters of personalized genomics: perspectives from research participants.
S E Gollust, E S Gordon, C Zayac, G Griffin, M F Christman, R E Pyeritz, L Wawak, B A Bernhardt. Public Health Genomics 2012
115
32

Impact of direct-to-consumer genomic testing at long term follow-up.
Cinnamon S Bloss, Nathan E Wineinger, Burcu F Darst, Nicholas J Schork, Eric J Topol. J Med Genet 2013
104
29

Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk.
Cinnamon S Bloss, Nicholas J Schork, Eric J Topol. N Engl J Med 2011
350
29

Direct-to-consumer genomic testing: systematic review of the literature on user perspectives.
Lesley Goldsmith, Leigh Jackson, Anita O'Connor, Heather Skirton. Eur J Hum Genet 2012
63
27


The general public's understanding and perception of direct-to-consumer genetic test results.
J W Leighton, K Valverde, B A Bernhardt. Public Health Genomics 2012
87
21

Personal genomics and individual identities: motivations and moral imperatives of early users.
Michelle L McGowan, Jennifer R Fishman, Marcie A Lambrix. New Genet Soc 2010
70
21

Consumer perceptions of direct-to-consumer personalized genomic risk assessments.
Cinnamon S Bloss, Laura Ornowski, Elana Silver, Michele Cargill, Vance Vanier, Nicholas J Schork, Eric J Topol. Genet Med 2010
89
21

Risky business: risk perception and the use of medical services among customers of DTC personal genetic testing.
David J Kaufman, Juli M Bollinger, Rachel L Dvoskin, Joan A Scott. J Genet Couns 2012
117
18

Social networkers' attitudes toward direct-to-consumer personal genome testing.
Amy L McGuire, Christina M Diaz, Tao Wang, Susan G Hilsenbeck. Am J Bioeth 2009
152
18

Legislation on direct-to-consumer genetic testing in seven European countries.
Pascal Borry, Rachel E van Hellemondt, Dominique Sprumont, Camilla Fittipaldi Duarte Jales, Emmanuelle Rial-Sebbag, Tade Matthias Spranger, Liam Curren, Jane Kaye, Herman Nys, Heidi Howard. Eur J Hum Genet 2012
72
16


Informed choice in direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT) websites: a content analysis of benefits, risks, and limitations.
Amanda Singleton, Lori Hamby Erby, Kathryn V Foisie, Kimberly A Kaphingst. J Genet Couns 2012
41
16

Balancing the risks and benefits of genomic data sharing: genome research participants' perspectives.
J M Oliver, M J Slashinski, T Wang, P A Kelly, S G Hilsenbeck, A L McGuire. Public Health Genomics 2012
75
16







Increasing Public Awareness of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests: Health Care Access, Internet Use, and Population Density Correlates.
Lila J Finney Rutten, Sarah E Gollust, Sana Naveed, Richard P Moser. J Cancer Epidemiol 2012
30
16

Public awareness and use of direct-to-consumer personal genomic tests from four state population-based surveys, and implications for clinical and public health practice.
Katherine Kolor, Debra Duquette, Amy Zlot, Joan Foland, Beth Anderson, Rebecca Giles, Jennifer Wrathall, Muin J Khoury. Genet Med 2012
31
16

Medical and graduate students' attitudes toward personal genomics.
Kelly E Ormond, Louanne Hudgins, Jennifer M Ladd, David M Magnus, Henry T Greely, Mildred K Cho. Genet Med 2011
31
16


Direct-to-consumer genomic testing from the perspective of the health professional: a systematic review of the literature.
Lesley Goldsmith, Leigh Jackson, Anita O'Connor, Heather Skirton. J Community Genet 2013
31
16

Genomic research and wide data sharing: views of prospective participants.
Susan Brown Trinidad, Stephanie M Fullerton, Julie M Bares, Gail P Jarvik, Eric B Larson, Wylie Burke. Genet Med 2010
137
13


Direct-to-consumer pharmacogenomic testing is associated with increased physician utilisation.
Cinnamon S Bloss, Nicholas J Schork, Eric J Topol. J Med Genet 2014
31
16

Primary care patients' views and decisions about, experience of and reactions to direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a longitudinal study.
Katherine Wasson, Tonya Nashay Sanders, Nancy S Hogan, Sara Cherny, Kathy J Helzlsouer. J Community Genet 2013
23
21


Evaluating the utility of personal genomic information.
Morris W Foster, John J Mulvihill, Richard R Sharp. Genet Med 2009
128
10

Attitudes toward direct-to-consumer advertisements and online genetic testing among high-risk women participating in a hereditary cancer clinic.
Giselle K Perez, Dean G Cruess, Stacy Cruess, Molly Brewer, Jennifer Stroop, Robin Schwartz, Robert Greenstein. J Health Commun 2011
11
36

"It's not like judgment day": public understanding of and reactions to personalized genomic risk information.
Erynn S Gordon, Georgia Griffin, Lisa Wawak, Hauchie Pang, Sarah E Gollust, Barbara A Bernhardt. J Genet Couns 2012
47
10

Awareness and uptake of direct-to-consumer genetic testing among cancer cases, their relatives, and controls: the Northwest Cancer Genetics Network.
Taryn O Hall, Anne D Renz, Katherine W Snapinn, Deborah J Bowen, Karen L Edwards. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2012
9
44

Educational needs of primary care physicians regarding direct-to-consumer genetic testing.
Karen P Powell, Carol A Christianson, Whitney A Cogswell, Gaurav Dave, Amit Verma, Sonja Eubanks, Vincent C Henrich. J Genet Couns 2012
39
10

Predictors of interest in direct-to-consumer genetic testing.
Kate Sweeny, Angela M Legg. Psychol Health 2011
19
21

Awareness of direct-to-consumer genetic tests and use of genetic tests among Puerto Rican adults, 2009.
Ana Patricia Ortiz, Magdalena L√≥pez, Libertad T Flores, Marievelisse Soto-Salgado, Lila J Finney Rutten, Ruby A Serrano-Rodriguez, Bradford W Hesse, Guillermo Tortolero-Luna. Prev Chronic Dis 2011
15
26


The challenge of personal genomics in Germany.
Effy Vayena, Barbara Prainsack. Nat Biotechnol 2013
7
57

DNA data sharing: research participants' perspectives.
Amy L McGuire, Jennifer A Hamilton, Rebecca Lunstroth, Laurence B McCullough, Alica Goldman. Genet Med 2008
77
10

Personal genome testing in medical education: student experiences with genotyping in the classroom.
Simone Lucia Vernez, Keyan Salari, Kelly E Ormond, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee. Genome Med 2013
40
10



Attitudes about regulation among direct-to-consumer genetic testing customers.
Juli Murphy Bollinger, Robert C Green, David Kaufman. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2013
28
14

Public attitudes towards genetic testing revisited: comparing opinions between 2002 and 2010.
Lidewij Henneman, Eric Vermeulen, Carla G van El, Liesbeth Claassen, Danielle R M Timmermans, Martina C Cornel. Eur J Hum Genet 2013
69
10

A critical view of the general public's awareness and physicians' opinion of the trends and potential pitfalls of genetic testing in Greece.
Yuan Mai, Theodora Koromila, Aggeliki Sagia, David N Cooper, Georgios Vlachopoulos, George Lagoumintzis, Panagoula Kollia, Konstantinos Poulas, Vlassios Stathakopoulos, George P Patrinos. Per Med 2011
34
11

Characteristics of users of online personalized genomic risk assessments: implications for physician-patient interactions.
Colleen M McBride, Sharon Hensley Alford, Robert J Reid, Eric B Larson, Andreas D Baxevanis, Lawrence C Brody. Genet Med 2009
88
10

Public attitudes towards preventive genomics and personal interest in genetic testing to prevent disease: a survey study.
Eric Vermeulen, Lidewij Henneman, Carla G van El, Martina C Cornel. Eur J Public Health 2014
34
11


Co-cited is the co-citation frequency, indicating how many articles cite the article together with the query article. Similarity is the co-citation as percentage of the times cited of the query article or the article in the search results, whichever is the lowest. These numbers are calculated for the last 100 citations when articles are cited more than 100 times.