↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 660)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Why are most colorectal cancers diagnosed outside of screening? A retrospective analysis of data from the English bowel screening programme
Published in
Journal of Medical Screening, May 2022
DOI 10.1177/09691413221100969
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Despite several interventions to increase participation in England, most colorectal cancers (CRCs) are diagnosed outside of the screening programme. The aims of this study were to better understand why most CRCs are diagnosed externally, the extent to which this is due to suboptimal uptake of screening, and the extent to which it is due to other factors, such as false-negative test results. We performed a clinical audit of 1011 patients diagnosed with CRC at St Mark's Hospital (Harrow, UK) between January 2017 and December 2020. Data on the diagnostic pathway and screening history of individuals were extracted from the bowel cancer screening system and assessed using descriptive statistics. 446/1011 (44.1%) patients diagnosed with CRC were eligible for screening at the time of diagnosis. Of these, only 115/446 (25.8%) were diagnosed through screening. Among those diagnosed via non-screening pathways, 210/331 (63.4%) had never taken part in screening, 31/331 (9.4%) had taken part but were not up to date, and 89/331 (26.9%) had taken part and were up-to-date (of these, 82/89 [92.2%] had received a normal or weak positive test result, and 5/89 [5.6%] had received a positive result and declined colonoscopy). Nearly two-thirds of screening eligible patients diagnosed through a non-screening pathway had never taken part in screening. This represents the single largest source of inefficiency within the screening programme, followed by missed findings and inconsistent participation. Given the improved outcomes associated with screen-detected cancers, there is a strong public health mandate to encourage participation.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 29%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 12%
Other 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Professor 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 41%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 12%
Unknown 7 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 16 July 2022.
All research outputs
#912,278
of 33,157,161 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Screening
#24
of 660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,202
of 464,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Screening
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,157,161 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. 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 464,321 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.