↓ Skip to main content

Molecular screening for bladder cancer: progress and potential

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Reviews Urology, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Molecular screening for bladder cancer: progress and potential
Published in
Nature Reviews Urology, January 2010
DOI 10.1038/nrurol.2009.236
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Carcinoma of the urinary bladder is a common malignancy and a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the western world. Current understanding of etiology, disease process, molecular characteristics and management principles make urothelial carcinoma an ideal candidate for screening. The capacity of traditional noninvasive diagnostic procedures such as microhematuria testing and urine cytology to be used as stand-alone screening techniques is limited, however. New qualitative and quantitative molecular screening modalities can detect cellular and subcellular alterations that are often exclusively associated with urothelial carcinoma. Such alterations can be detected in a noninvasive manner, using urine as a marker source, with reasonable sensitivity and specificity. Application of several molecular assays in conjunction with traditional screening methods has had promising results. We propose an evidence-based and risk-based approach to future bladder cancer screening. Such an approach would harness the reasonable sensitivity, ease of use and cost-effectiveness of microhematuria testing, plus the specificity of molecular tests, to target high-risk populations for screening. The ultimate goals are to identify susceptible individuals, detect bladder tumors before they invade using unobtrusive and cost-effective methods, and optimize surveillance strategies for long-term follow-up.

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 62 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 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 21%
Other 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Professor 5 8%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 14 23%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 17 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 23 April 2020.
All research outputs
#8,024,075
of 27,145,244 outputs
Outputs from Nature Reviews Urology
#1,116
of 2,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,290
of 182,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Reviews Urology
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,145,244 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,286 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 182,614 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.