↓ Skip to main content

Krebsfrüherkennung aus Sicht der Public-Health-Ethik

Overview of attention for article published in Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
Krebsfrüherkennung aus Sicht der Public-Health-Ethik
Published in
Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz, February 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00103-013-1913-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

G. Marckmann, J. in der Schmitten

Abstract

Cancer screening programs aim at reducing the tumor-related morbidity and mortality by early detection of malignant tumors or precancerous lesions. The basic ethical dilemma in cancer screening is, however, that many people have to be exposed to the burdens and risks of the intervention for a few people to benefit from early cancer diagnosis. This article discusses under which conditions it is ethically acceptable to offer or even recommend cancer screening. First, the benefit of the program in terms of a reduced cancer-related mortality should be proven by randomized controlled trials. The risks and burdens of the program related to the side effects of the investigation itself, false-positive findings, as well as overdiagnoses and overtherapy should be in an acceptable relationship to the expected benefit of the program. In addition to a solid empirical scientific basis, the benefit-harm evaluation necessarily involves value judgments. The potential participants in the screening program therefore should receive transparent, objective, unbiased, and understandable information to enable them to make a truly informed choice about participation. Given the complex benefit-risk assessment, it is discussed whether-and if so under which circumstances-it is ethically acceptable to make a recommendation for or against participation in a cancer screening program. Socioempirical research, such as focus group studies and public deliberations, can be used to elicit the preferences and value judgments of members of the target population that should be taken into consideration in recommendations about a cancer screening program.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 29%
Student > Bachelor 1 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 14%
Researcher 1 14%
Unknown 2 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 29%
Computer Science 1 14%
Social Sciences 1 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 14%
Unknown 2 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 March 2014.
All research outputs
#17,715,061
of 22,747,498 outputs
Outputs from Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz
#706
of 921 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,801
of 224,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,747,498 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 921 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 224,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.