↓ Skip to main content

Risk Prediction Models for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Prevention Research, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
135 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 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
Risk Prediction Models for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review
Published in
Cancer Prevention Research, January 2016
DOI 10.1158/1940-6207.capr-15-0274
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juliet A Usher-Smith, Fiona M Walter, Jon D Emery, Aung K Win, Simon J Griffin

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in Europe and the United States. Survival is strongly related to stage at diagnosis and population-based screening reduces CRC incidence and mortality. Stratifying the population by risk offers the potential of improving the efficiency of screening. In this systematic review we searched Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for primary research studies reporting or validating models to predict future risk of primary CRC for asymptomatic individuals. 12,808 papers were identified from the literature search and nine through citation searching. 52 risk models were included. Where reported (n=37), half the models had acceptable-to-good discrimination (c-statistic>0.7) in the derivation sample. Calibration was less commonly assessed (n=21), but overall acceptable. In external validation studies, 10 models showed acceptable discrimination (c-statistic 0.71-0.78). These include two with only three variables (age, gender and BMI; age, gender and family history of CRC). A small number of prediction models developed from case-control studies of genetic biomarkers also show some promise but require further external validation using population-based samples. Further research should focus on the feasibility and impact of incorporating such models into stratified screening programmes.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 164 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 16%
Student > Master 18 11%
Other 13 8%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Other 29 17%
Unknown 39 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Engineering 5 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 3%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 49 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 03 October 2023.
All research outputs
#2,986,827
of 24,580,204 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Prevention Research
#297
of 1,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,043
of 403,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Prevention Research
#6
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,580,204 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,424 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 403,931 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.