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 |
Combining risk factors with faecal immunochemical test outcome for selecting CRC screenees for colonoscopy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Gut, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-305013 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Inge Stegeman, Thomas R de Wijkerslooth, Esther M Stoop, Monique E van Leerdam, Evelien Dekker, Marjolein van Ballegooijen, Ernst J Kuipers, Paul Fockens, Roderik A Kraaijenhagen, Patrick M Bossuyt |
| Abstract |
Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is increasingly used in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening but has a less than perfect sensitivity. Combining risk stratification, based on established risk factors for advanced neoplasia, with the FIT result for allocating screenees to colonoscopy could increase the sensitivity and diagnostic yield of FIT-based screening. We explored the use of a risk prediction model in CRC screening. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 74 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 19% |
| Researcher | 14 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 19% |
| Unknown | 18 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 53% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 23 | 30% |
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 21 August 2013.
All research outputs
#17,693,152
of 22,716,996 outputs
Outputs from Gut
#5,979
of 6,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,470
of 198,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gut
#48
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,716,996 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,817 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.1. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 198,610 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.