| Title |
Cost‐effectiveness of alternating magnetic resonance imaging and digital mammography screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer (0008543X), November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/cncr.27864 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jessica E. Cott Chubiz, Janie M. Lee, Michael E. Gilmore, Chung Y. Kong, Kathryn P. Lowry, Elkan F. Halpern, Pamela M. McMahon, Ryan Paula D, G. Scott Gazelle |
| Abstract |
Current clinical guidelines recommend earlier, more intensive breast cancer screening with both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography for women with breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutations. Unspecified details of screening schedules are a challenge for implementing guidelines. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 57% |
| Colombia | 1 | 14% |
| Romania | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 89 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 14 | 15% |
| Unknown | 17 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 9% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Unknown | 20 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 01 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,015,430
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Cancer (0008543X)
#1,710
of 14,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,719
of 285,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer (0008543X)
#9
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,100 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 285,980 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.