↓ Skip to main content

ACR Appropriateness Criteria Breast Cancer Screening

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the American College of Radiology, November 2016
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
Title
ACR Appropriateness Criteria Breast Cancer Screening
Published in
Journal of the American College of Radiology, November 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.09.021
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martha B. Mainiero, Ana Lourenco, Mary C. Mahoney, Mary S. Newell, Lisa Bailey, Lora D. Barke, Carl D’Orsi, Jennifer A. Harvey, Mary K. Hayes, Phan Tuong Huynh, Peter M. Jokich, Su-Ju Lee, Constance D. Lehman, David A. Mankoff, Joshua A. Nepute, Samir B. Patel, Handel E. Reynolds, M. Linda Sutherland, Bruce G. Haffty

Abstract

Mammography is the recommended method for breast cancer screening of women in the general population. However, mammography alone does not perform as well as mammography plus supplemental screening in high-risk women. Therefore, supplemental screening with MRI or ultrasound is recommended in selected high-risk populations. Screening breast MRI is recommended in women at high risk for breast cancer on the basis of family history or genetic predisposition. Ultrasound is an option for those high-risk women who cannot undergo MRI. Recent literature also supports the use of breast MRI in some women of intermediate risk, and ultrasound may be an option for intermediate-risk women with dense breasts. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of other imaging modalities, such as thermography, breast-specific gamma imaging, positron emission mammography, and optical imaging, for breast cancer screening. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review includes an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 110 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 14%
Other 9 8%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 29 26%
Unknown 31 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 31%
Engineering 8 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 39 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 82. 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 18 June 2021.
All research outputs
#515,700
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the American College of Radiology
#75
of 3,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,939
of 317,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the American College of Radiology
#4
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,479 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 317,794 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 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 94% of its contemporaries.