↓ Skip to main content

The Ethics of Breast Surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgical Oncology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
The Ethics of Breast Surgery
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology, July 2015
DOI 10.1245/s10434-015-4751-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alyssa Throckmorton, Lindi VanderWalde, Craig Brackett, Laura Dominici, Thomas Eisenhauer, Nathalie Johnson, Amanda Kong, Kandice Ludwig, Jennifer O’Neill, Matthew Pugliese, Paige Teller, Terry Sarantou

Abstract

Breast surgery has evolved as a subspecialty of general surgery and requires a working knowledge of benign and malignant diseases, surgical techniques, shared decision-making with patients, collaboration with a multi-disciplinary team, and a basic foundation in surgical ethics. Ethics is defined as the practice of analyzing, evaluating, and promoting best conduct based upon available standards. As new information is obtained or as cultural values change, best conduct may be re-defined. In 2014, the Ethics Committee of the ASBrS acknowledged numerous ethical issues, specific to the practice of breast surgery. This independent review of ethical concerns was created by the Ethics Committee to provide a resource for ASBrS members as well as other surgeons who perform breast surgery. In this review, the professional, clinical, research and technology considerations that breast surgeons face are reviewed with guidelines for ethical physician behavior.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Researcher 5 16%
Other 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Philosophy 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 6 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,232,642
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#4,058
of 6,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,447
of 263,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#49
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 263,426 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 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 55% of its contemporaries.