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 |
Por que reconsiderar a indicação do rastreamento do câncer de mama?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cadernos de Saúde Pública, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1590/0102-311x00095914 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Charles Dalcanale Tesser, Thiago Luiz de Campos d'Ávila |
| Abstract |
The aim of this article was to discuss the recommendation of mammogram screening for breast cancer and its technical basis. The first part discusses criteria for the decision, which should be consistent with high-quality scientific evidence. The second part discusses over-diagnosis (the greatest harm of screening) and its meaning in questioning the natural history of disease model. The third part summarizes studies on the efficacy, effectiveness, and harms of screening, showing that the latter (especially over-diagnosis and false-positives) are significant, shedding doubt on the balance between harms and benefits. In conclusion, the recommendation of mammogram screening at any age should be reconsidered by Brazilian health authorities. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 9 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Researcher | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 9 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 12 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 05 February 2019.
All research outputs
#2,575,049
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#65
of 1,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,291
of 353,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#2
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,855 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 353,666 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 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.