| Title |
Relationship between risk information on total colonoscopy and patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening options: Analysis using the Analytic Hierarchy Process
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, May 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-8-106 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yuichi Katsumura, Hideo Yasunaga, Tomoaki Imamura, Kazuhiko Ohe, Hiroshi Oyama |
| Abstract |
Although the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) is the preferred program for colorectal cancer screening in Japan, many medical institutions have recently begun to provide total colonoscopy (TCS) as an initial screening program. However, there are a number of severe risks associated with TCS, such as colorectal bleeding and perforation. The justification for performing such a procedure on healthy patients remains unclear. We used the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to investigate whether risk information on TCS affects patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 1 | 2% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 59 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 16 | 26% |
| Unknown | 13 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 30% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 7% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 23% |
| Unknown | 15 | 25% |
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 26 April 2014.
All research outputs
#15,299,919
of 22,754,104 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,546
of 7,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,676
of 82,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#22
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,754,104 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,617 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 82,336 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.