| Title |
Pitfalls in accurate estimation of overdiagnosis: implications for screening policy and compliance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Breast Cancer Research, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/bcr3448 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephen A Feig |
| Abstract |
Stories in the public media that 30 to 50% of screen-detected breast cancers are overdiagnosed dissuade women from being screened because overdiagnosed cancers would never result in death if undetected yet do result in unnecessary treatment. However, such concerns are unwarranted because the frequency of overdiagnosis, when properly calculated, is only 0 to 5%. In the previous issue of Breast Cancer Research, Duffy and Parmar report that accurate estimation of the rate of overdiagnosis recognizes the effect of lead time on detection rates and the consequent requirement for an adequate number of years of follow-up. These indispensable elements were absent from highly publicized studies that overestimated the frequency of overdiagnosis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 15 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 25% |
| Researcher | 3 | 19% |
| Professor | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 13% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 44% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 6% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Psychology | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 15 August 2013.
All research outputs
#15,516,483
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research
#1,369
of 2,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,587
of 208,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research
#13
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,052 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 208,965 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.