| Title |
Specificity of Clinical Breast Examination in Community Practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-006-0062-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joshua J. Fenton, Sharon J. Rolnick, Emily L. Harris, Mary B. Barton, William E. Barlow, Lisa M. Reisch, Lisa J. Herrinton, Ann M. Geiger, Suzanne W. Fletcher, Joann G. Elmore |
| Abstract |
Millions of women receive clinical breast examination (CBE) each year, as either a breast cancer screening test or a diagnostic test for breast symptoms. While screening CBE had moderately high specificity (approximately 94%) in clinical trials, community clinicians may be comparatively inexperienced and may conduct relatively brief examinations, resulting in even higher specificity but lower sensitivity. |
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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 39 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 57% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 August 2015.
All research outputs
#4,043,787
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#2,699
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,340
of 162,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#21
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 162,994 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.