↓ Skip to main content

The Aarhus statement: improving design and reporting of studies on early cancer diagnosis

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Cancer, March 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 (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
419 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Title
The Aarhus statement: improving design and reporting of studies on early cancer diagnosis
Published in
British Journal of Cancer, March 2012
DOI 10.1038/bjc.2012.68
Pubmed ID
Authors

D Weller, P Vedsted, G Rubin, F M Walter, J Emery, S Scott, C Campbell, R S Andersen, W Hamilton, F Olesen, P Rose, S Nafees, E van Rijswijk, S Hiom, C Muth, M Beyer, R D Neal

Abstract

Early diagnosis is a key factor in improving the outcomes of cancer patients. A greater understanding of the pre-diagnostic patient pathways is vital yet, at present, research in this field lacks consistent definitions and methods. As a consequence much early diagnosis research is difficult to interpret. A consensus group was formed with the aim of producing guidance and a checklist for early cancer-diagnosis researchers. A consensus conference approach combined with nominal group techniques was used. The work was supported by a systematic review of early diagnosis literature, focussing on existing instruments used to measure time points and intervals in early cancer-diagnosis research. A series of recommendations for definitions and methodological approaches is presented. This is complemented by a checklist that early diagnosis researchers can use when designing and conducting studies in this field. The Aarhus checklist is a resource for early cancer-diagnosis research that should promote greater precision and transparency in both definitions and methods. Further work will examine whether the checklist can be readily adopted by researchers, and feedback on the guidance will be used in future updates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 419 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 416 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 70 17%
Student > Master 56 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 10%
Other 29 7%
Student > Bachelor 29 7%
Other 92 22%
Unknown 101 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 178 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 5%
Psychology 16 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 2%
Other 52 12%
Unknown 129 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 27 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,697,230
of 22,757,090 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Cancer
#2,586
of 10,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,954
of 156,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Cancer
#11
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,090 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,407 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 156,726 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.