↓ Skip to main content

Faecal Occult Blood Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening: the Past or the Future

Overview of attention for article published in Current Gastroenterology Reports, February 2015
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 (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Faecal Occult Blood Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening: the Past or the Future
Published in
Current Gastroenterology Reports, February 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11894-015-0428-2
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) reduces CRC mortality; many countries have implemented population-based CRC screening programmes and many more are poised to do so. Whilst several different CRC screening modalities are available, choice will be influenced by cost, available resources (e.g. high-quality colonoscopy) and acceptability of the test by the invited population. For CRC screening, no screening test has so far surpassed the practicality, affordability and effectiveness of tests for the presence of blood in faeces (faecal occult blood tests, FOBt). The results of several large FOBt-based randomised controlled trials provide the best clinical evidence to support their use in population-based CRC screening. This review considers the current options for CRC screening and the future for FOBt.

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 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 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Bachelor 10 15%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 20 30%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 19 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 12 November 2022.
All research outputs
#4,388,494
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Current Gastroenterology Reports
#3
of 3 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,614
of 367,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Gastroenterology Reports
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.9. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 367,839 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them