↓ Skip to main content

Individualizing Cancer Screening in Older Adults: A Narrative Review and Framework for Future Research

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, September 2012
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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Individualizing Cancer Screening in Older Adults: A Narrative Review and Framework for Future Research
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, September 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11606-012-2227-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth Eckstrom, David H. Feeny, Louise C. Walter, Leslie A. Perdue, Evelyn P. Whitlock

Abstract

Older adults often have multiple chronic conditions that may decrease additional life expectancy. Research evaluating the benefits and harms of screening must include consideration of competing morbidities and patient heterogeneity (beyond age), potentially increased harms of screening, and patient preferences. Other areas in need of additional research include the lack of evidence for older adults on the harms of screening tests; the overdiagnosis of disease; the burden of disease labeling; the effects of inaccurate test results; the harms of disease treatment; and harms related to prioritization of healthcare (e.g., for a particular patient, lifestyle counseling may be more important than screening). Nontraditional outcomes, such as the effects on family caregivers, are also relevant. Studies comparing trajectories of quality-adjusted survival with and without screening to assess net benefit are typically lacking. There is little evidence on the preferences of older adults for deciding whether to be screened, the process of being screened, and the health states associated with being or not being screened. To enhance the quality and quantity of evidence, older adults need to be enrolled in screening trials and clinical studies. Measures of functional status and health-related quality of life (HRQL) need to be included in trials, registries, and cohort studies. This article addresses these challenges, and presents a framework for what research is needed to better inform screening decisions in older adults.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 74 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 17%
Researcher 13 17%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 22 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 27 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 September 2014.
All research outputs
#3,116,733
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#2,263
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,573
of 174,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#27
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 174,531 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 58 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 53% of its contemporaries.