Guidelines on the standards for the training of specialised health professionals dealing with breast cancer

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Cancer (1965), February 2007

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 (91st percentile)
Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy: 1 policy source

guideline: 3 clinical guideline sources

Readers on

mendeley: 130 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	Guidelines on the standards for the training of specialised health professionals dealing with breast cancer
Published in	European Journal of Cancer (1965), February 2007
DOI	10.1016/j.ejca.2006.12.008
Pubmed ID	17276672
Authors	L. Cataliotti, C. De Wolf, R. Holland, L. Marotti, N. Perry, K. Redmond, M. Rosselli Del Turco, H. Rijken, N. Kearney, I.O. Ellis, A. Di Leo, R. Orecchia, A. Noel, M. Andersson, W. Audretsch, N. Bjurstam, R.W. Blamey, M. Blichert-Toft, H. Bosmans, A. Burch, G. Bussolati, M.R. Christiaens, M. Colleoni, G. Cserni, T. Cufer, S. Cush, J. Damilakis, M. Drijkoningen, P. Ellis, J. Foubert, M. Gambaccini, E. Gentile, F. Guedea, J. Hendriks, R. Jakesz, J. Jassem, B.A. Jereczek-Fossa, O. Laird, E. Lartigau, W. Mattheiem, N. O’Higgins, E. Pennery, D. Rainsbury, E. Rutgers, M. Smola, E. Van Limbergen, K. von Smitten, C. Wells, R. Wilson, on behalf of EUSOMA

View on publisher site Alert me about new mentions

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

Timeline

Activity

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 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 %
Spain	2	2%
Portugal	1	<1%
Denmark	1	<1%
Unknown	126	97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status	Count	As %
Researcher	16	12%
Other	14	11%
Professor	14	11%
Student > Master	14	11%
Professor > Associate Professor	11	8%
Other	34	26%
Unknown	27	21%

Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline	Count	As %
Medicine and Dentistry	62	48%
Nursing and Health Professions	11	8%
Social Sciences	5	4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology	3	2%
Computer Science	3	2%
Other	6	5%
Unknown	40	31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 January 2025.

All research outputs

#3,804,703

of 34,517,289 outputs

Outputs from European Journal of Cancer (1965)

#1,284

of 8,852 outputs

Outputs of similar age

#15,597

of 229,953 outputs

Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Cancer (1965)

of 48 outputs

Altmetric has tracked 34,517,289 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.

So far Altmetric has tracked 8,852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 229,953 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 91% of its contemporaries.

We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.