↓ Skip to main content

Colorectal cancer screening

Overview of attention for article published in Internal Medicine Journal, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Colorectal cancer screening
Published in
Internal Medicine Journal, January 2015
DOI 10.1111/imj.12636
Pubmed ID
Authors

B. A. Leggett, D. G. Hewett

Abstract

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common malignancies in Australia, and screening to detect it an earlier stage is cost-effective. Furthermore, detection and removal of precursor polyps can reduce incidence. Currently, there are limited data to determine the screening rate in Australia, but it is certainly lower than the 80% screening rate considered desirable. Whether colonoscopy is used as the screening test or to follow up positive results of an initial non-invasive test, it plays a fundamental role. Despite high sensitivity and specificity, it is expensive and invasive with measurable risk and is not acceptable as an initial test to many participants. It does not provide complete protection, and interval cancers between planned colonoscopies are associated with proximal location, origin in sessile serrated adenomas and operator-dependent factors. An essential component of colorectal screening is the measurement of colonoscopy quality indicators, such as caecal intubation and adenoma detection rates, which are known to be associated with the rate of interval cancer. The non-invasive screening test currently recommended in Australia is biennial testing for faecal occult blood between the ages of 50 and 75 using a faecal immunochemical test, with positives evaluated by colonoscopy. This is provided through the National Bowel Cancer Screening Programme, currently for those at the ages of 50, 55, 60 and 65 years, with full implementation of biennial screening by 2020. To improve screening in Australia, the most fruitful approach may be to acknowledge that there is a choice of screening tests and to focus on the goal of improving overall participation rate and being able to measure this.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Hong Kong 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 70 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 19%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Unspecified 6 8%
Other 23 31%
Unknown 10 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 45%
Unspecified 6 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 15 20%
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 15 January 2015.
All research outputs
#19,922,330
of 24,484,013 outputs
Outputs from Internal Medicine Journal
#2,069
of 2,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,019
of 362,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Internal Medicine Journal
#24
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,484,013 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,462 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 362,027 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.