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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Benefits and Harms of CT Screening for Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1001/jama.2012.5521 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter B. Bach, Joshua N. Mirkin, Thomas K. Oliver, Christopher G. Azzoli, Donald A. Berry, Otis W. Brawley, Tim Byers, Graham A. Colditz, Michael K. Gould, James R. Jett, Anita L. Sabichi, Rebecca Smith-Bindman, Douglas E. Wood, Amir Qaseem, Frank C. Detterbeck |
| Abstract |
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Most patients are diagnosed with advanced disease, resulting in a very low 5-year survival. Screening may reduce the risk of death from lung cancer. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 24% |
| United States | 6 | 24% |
| Spain | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 10 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 68% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 16% |
| Scientists | 3 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 754 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | 1% |
| France | 3 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | <1% |
| Unknown | 729 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 106 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 91 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 87 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 78 | 10% |
| Other | 72 | 10% |
| Other | 188 | 25% |
| Unknown | 132 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 331 | 44% |
| Engineering | 32 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 30 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 30 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 24 | 3% |
| Other | 127 | 17% |
| Unknown | 180 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 128. 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 20 October 2023.
All research outputs
#323,932
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#3,984
of 36,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,474
of 181,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#10
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 36,409 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 72.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 181,066 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.