↓ Skip to main content

Potential of non-invasive breath tests for preselecting individuals for invasive gastric cancer screening endoscopy

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Breath Research, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Potential of non-invasive breath tests for preselecting individuals for invasive gastric cancer screening endoscopy
Published in
Journal of Breath Research, April 2018
DOI 10.1088/1752-7163/aab5be
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Regular screening for gastric cancer (GC) is based on invasive upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and is limited to few high-incidence countries. As GC is a major cause of cancer death worldwide, a non-invasive, simple screening test is of value. We assessed the prevalence of preclinical GC and the corresponding numbers needed to screen (NNS) to detect GC cases both without and with preselection using breath tests from the literature in various populations. Using age- and sex-specific GC incidence data and rates of transition from preclinical to clinical GC, we estimated the prevalences of preclinical GC worldwide in populations aged 50-74 years, and we evaluated the accuracy of breath testing for GC detection based on published studies. We then derived the expected positive predictive values for breath testing in populations with different preclinical GC prevalences. Four studies reporting the sensitivity and specificity of breath tests were identified, and summary estimates of 83% sensitivity and 91% specificity were derived by meta-analysis. The estimates of the overall prevalence of preclinical GC were <0.5% in men and <0.2% in women aged 50-74 years across different regions of the world. The positive predictive values, the prevalence among breath test positive people, were approximately nine-fold higher in all populations, resulting in an approximately nine-fold lower NNS to detect one GC case when breath tests were used for preselection for screening. Given the low prevalence of preclinical GC, non-invasive breath tests show promise for making screening more efficient. Further validation of breath tests and evidence on the rates of transition from preclinical to clinical GC are needed to validate the breath test approach.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 25 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 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 12%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 10 40%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 36%
Chemistry 2 8%
Engineering 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Unknown 11 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 January 2022.
All research outputs
#10,765,708
of 32,950,213 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Breath Research
#235
of 635 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,955
of 360,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Breath Research
#8
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,950,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 635 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 360,646 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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 57% of its contemporaries.