↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
17 news outlets
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
13 X users
patent
4 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Readers on

mendeley
152 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
Knowledge of, attitudes toward, and use of low‐dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening among family physicians
Published in
Cancer (0008543X), June 2016
DOI 10.1002/cncr.29944
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The results of the National Lung Screening Trial showed a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality and a 6.7% reduction in all-cause mortality when high-risk patients were screened with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) versus chest x-ray (CXR). The US Preventive Services Task Force has issued a grade B recommendation for LDCT screening, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and private insurers now cover the screening cost under certain conditions. The purpose of this study was to assess the knowledge of, attitudes toward, and use of LDCT screening for lung cancer among family physicians. A 32-item questionnaire was distributed to members of the South Carolina Academy of Family Physicians in 2015. Descriptive statistics were calculated. There were 101 respondents, and most had incorrect knowledge about which organizations recommended screening. Many physicians continued to recommend CXR for lung cancer screening. Most felt that LDCT screening increased the odds of detecting disease at earlier stages (98%) and that the benefits outweighed the harms (75%). Concerns included unnecessary procedures (88%), stress/anxiety (52%), and radiation exposure (50%). Most physicians discussed the risks/benefits of screening with their patients in some capacity (76%); however, more than 50% reported making 1 or no screening recommendations in the past year. Most family physicians report discussing LDCT with patients at high risk for lung cancer; however, referrals remain low. There are gaps in physician knowledge about screening guidelines and reimbursement, and this indicates a need for further educational outreach. The development of decision aids may facilitate shared decision-making discussions about screening, and targeted interventions may improve knowledge gaps. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

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 13 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 152 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 %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 151 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 18%
Student > Master 20 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 5%
Other 29 19%
Unknown 40 26%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 18%
Social Sciences 12 8%
Psychology 8 5%
Computer Science 4 3%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 51 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 150. 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 09 December 2025.
All research outputs
#347,429
of 34,364,397 outputs
Outputs from Cancer (0008543X)
#329
of 18,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,027
of 345,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer (0008543X)
#8
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,364,397 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 18,979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 345,880 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 173 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 95% of its contemporaries.