↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic colonoscopy following a positive fecal occult blood test in community health center patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Causes & Control, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
Title
Diagnostic colonoscopy following a positive fecal occult blood test in community health center patients
Published in
Cancer Causes & Control, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10552-016-0763-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

David T. Liss, Tiffany Brown, Ji Young Lee, Marjorie Altergott, David R. Buchanan, Anne Newland, Jessica N. Park, Sarah S. Rittner, David W. Baker

Abstract

Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) is a pragmatic screening option for many community health centers (CHCs), but FOBT screening programs will not reduce mortality if patients with positive results do not undergo diagnostic colonoscopy (DC). This study was conducted to investigate DC completion among CHC patients. This retrospective cohort study used data from three CHCs in the Midwest and Southwest. The primary study outcome was DC completion within 6 months of positive FOBT among adults age 50-75. Patient data was collected using automated electronic queries. Manual chart reviews were conducted if queries produced no evidence of DC. Poisson regression models described adjusted relative risks (RRs) of DC completion. The study included 308 patients; 63.3 % were female, 48.7 % were Spanish speakers and 35.7 % were uninsured. Based on combined query and chart review findings, 51.5 % completed DC. Spanish speakers were more likely than English speakers to complete DC [RR 1.19; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.36; P = 0.009], and DC completion was lower among patients with 0 visits than those with 1-2 visits (RR 2.81; 95% CI 1.83-4.33; P < 0.001) or ≥3 visits (RR 3.06; 95% CI 1.57-5.95; P = 0.001). DC completion was low overall, which raises concerns about whether FOBT can reduce CRC mortality in practice. Further research is needed to understand whether CHC navigator programs can achieve very high DC rates. If organizations use FOBT as their primary CRC screening approach and a substantial number of patients receive positive results, both screening rates and DC rates should be measured.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Professor 3 7%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 14 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 21%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 19 44%
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 02 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,150,554
of 24,059,832 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Causes & Control
#1,536
of 2,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,034
of 342,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Causes & Control
#17
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,059,832 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,198 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 342,567 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.