↓ Skip to main content

Tamoxifen versus Raloxifene versus Exemestane for Chemoprevention

Overview of attention for article published in Current Breast Cancer Reports, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 159)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
Title
Tamoxifen versus Raloxifene versus Exemestane for Chemoprevention
Published in
Current Breast Cancer Reports, June 2012
DOI 10.1007/s12609-012-0082-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Reimers, Katherine D. Crew

Abstract

Clinical trial data on selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) and aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have demonstrated reduced breast cancer incidence in the prevention setting among high-risk women. We conducted an extensive review of clinical trials and recent published reports of barriers to uptake of breast cancer chemoprevention, to provide health care professionals with information to improve decision-making regarding chemoprevention. Despite the positive results of these trials, uptake of chemoprevention has been low due to barriers in identifying high-risk women, lack of understanding of risks and benefits, as well as concerns about side effects. Interventions designed to increase uptake have met with limited success. Clinicians can support women in informed decision-making about SERMs and AIs by effectively communicating breast cancer risk and enhancing knowledge about the risks and benefits of chemoprevention. Promoting uptake and adherence to chemoprevention holds promise for reducing the public health burden of this disease.

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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brunei Darussalam 1 2%
Unknown 60 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 21%
Other 7 11%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Master 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 16 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 38%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Psychology 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 17 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 24 January 2018.
All research outputs
#2,366,263
of 22,751,628 outputs
Outputs from Current Breast Cancer Reports
#11
of 159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,815
of 164,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Breast Cancer Reports
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,751,628 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 159 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 164,489 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 90% 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