↓ Skip to main content

The impact of mammographic screening on the surgical management of breast cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Seminars in Surgical Oncology, January 2016
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 (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
The impact of mammographic screening on the surgical management of breast cancer
Published in
Seminars in Surgical Oncology, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/jso.24184
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ted A James, Jacqueline E Wade, Brian L Sprague

Abstract

Mammographic screening has been shown to result in downward stage migration, reflected by smaller tumor sizes and less extensive nodal involvement. National guidelines restrict screening recommendations in women age 40-49. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the specific impact of mammographic screening patterns on the surgical management of breast cancer in women aged 40-49. The study is a population-based retrospective review of the Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System of women aged 40-49 with a diagnosis of breast cancer. Tumor stage and related characteristics at the time of diagnosis, as well as the type of surgical intervention performed were recorded for women presenting with screen-detected versus non-screen-detected breast cancer. Screen-detected breast cancers in women aged 40-49 were associated with a greater incidence of DCIS, smaller invasive tumor size, fewer cases of positive nodes, and higher rates of breast conservation compared to non-screened women presenting with symptomatic disease. Mammographic screening is associated with less aggressive surgical treatment of breast cancer including higher rates of breast conservation. The observed changes in surgical management should factor into individual decision-making regarding screening mammography. J. Surg. Oncol. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 10 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 9%
Computer Science 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 8 25%
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 04 October 2023.
All research outputs
#17,465,866
of 25,621,213 outputs
Outputs from Seminars in Surgical Oncology
#1,647
of 2,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#246,818
of 405,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Seminars in Surgical Oncology
#25
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,621,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,815 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 405,361 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 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 62% of its contemporaries.