| Title |
Guaiac‐based faecal occult blood tests versus faecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer screening in average‐risk individuals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2022
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009276.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Esmée J Grobbee, Pieter HA Wisse, Eline H Schreuders, Aafke van Roon, Leonie van Dam, Ann G Zauber, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Wichor Bramer, Sarah Berhane, Jonathan J Deeks, Ewout W Steyerberg, Monique E van Leerdam, Manon Cw Spaander, Ernst J Kuipers |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
| Brazil | 1 | 7% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 7% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 9 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 73% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 27% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 71 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Researcher | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 20% |
| Unknown | 28 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 28 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 September 2023.
All research outputs
#1,466,300
of 25,658,541 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,128
of 13,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,392
of 448,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#42
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,658,541 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,150 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 448,691 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 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 65% of its contemporaries.