↓ Skip to main content

Fecal immunochemical tests in combination with blood tests for colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma detection—systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in United European Gastroenterology Journal, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
37 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.
Article details
Title
Fecal immunochemical tests in combination with blood tests for colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma detection—systematic review
Published in
United European Gastroenterology Journal, October 2017
DOI 10.1177/2050640617737004
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common but largely preventable cancer. Although fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) detect the majority of CRCs, they miss some of the cancers and most advanced adenomas (AAs). The potential of blood tests in complementing FITs for the detection of CRC or AA has not yet been systematically investigated. We conducted a systematic review of performance of FIT combined with an additional blood test for CRC and AA detection versus FIT alone. PubMed and Web of Science were searched until June 9, 2017. Some markers substantially increased sensitivity for CRC when combined with FIT, albeit typically at a major loss of specificity. For AA, no relevant increase in sensitivity could be achieved. Combining FIT and blood tests might be a promising approach to enhance sensitivity of CRC screening, but comprehensive evaluation of promising marker combinations in screening populations is needed.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 16%
Student > Master 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 5%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 11 30%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Chemistry 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 13 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 17 February 2018.
All research outputs
#7,583,398
of 34,372,222 outputs
Outputs from United European Gastroenterology Journal
#722
of 1,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,583
of 363,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age from United European Gastroenterology Journal
#4
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,372,222 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,449 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 363,924 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.