↓ Skip to main content

Screening for Colorectal Cancer and Evolving Issues for Physicians and Patients: A Review

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, November 2016
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
150 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 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
Screening for Colorectal Cancer and Evolving Issues for Physicians and Patients: A Review
Published in
JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, November 2016
DOI 10.1001/jama.2016.17418
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Lieberman, Uri Ladabaum, Marcia Cruz-Correa, Carla Ginsburg, John M. Inadomi, Lawrence S. Kim, Francis M. Giardiello, Richard C. Wender

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Screening can reduce CRC mortality and incidence, and numerous screening options, although available, complicate informed decision making. This review provides evidence-based tools for primary care physicians to identify patients with higher-than-average-risk and engage patients in informed decision making about CRC screening options. Recently, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended any of 8 CRC screening approaches for average-risk individuals, beginning at age 50 years. Only 2 methods have been shown in randomized clinical trials to reduce mortality: fecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Of the 8 programs, screenings using the fecal immunochemical test annually and colonoscopy every 10 years are now the most commonly used tests in the United States and among the most effective in reducing CRC mortality as determined by decision models. With the exception of primary screening using colonoscopy, all of the other screening approaches have multiple steps. Adherence to each phase of a multistep program is critical to achieving maximal effectiveness of the screening program. It is likely that each of the recommended programs can reduce CRC mortality, but other key outcomes may differ such as lifetime burden of colonoscopy, complications, patient acceptance, and cost. Decisions about the timing of screening cessation should be individualized. CRC screening is effective if patients adhere to the steps in each screening program. There is no evidence that one program is superior to another. Informed decision-making tools are provided to assist patients and clinicians with the goal of improving adherence to effective screening.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 150 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 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 167 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 18%
Student > Master 19 11%
Other 18 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Other 38 22%
Unknown 36 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 5%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 45 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 132. 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 14 December 2022.
All research outputs
#315,866
of 25,466,764 outputs
Outputs from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#3,893
of 36,494 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,391
of 416,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#83
of 412 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,466,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 36,494 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 72.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 416,024 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 412 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.