↓ Skip to main content

Recommendations on breast cancer screening and prevention in the context of implementing risk stratification: impending changes to current policies.

Overview of attention for article published in Current Oncology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Recommendations on breast cancer screening and prevention in the context of implementing risk stratification: impending changes to current policies.
Published in
Current Oncology, December 2016
DOI 10.3747/co.23.2961
Pubmed ID
Authors

J Gagnon, E Lévesque, F Borduas, J Chiquette, C Diorio, N Duchesne, M Dumais, L Eloy, W Foulkes, N Gervais, L Lalonde, B L'Espérance, S Meterissian, L Provencher, J Richard, C Savard, I Trop, N Wong, B M Knoppers, J Simard

Abstract

In recent years, risk stratification has sparked interest as an innovative approach to disease screening and prevention. The approach effectively personalizes individual risk, opening the way to screening and prevention interventions that are adapted to subpopulations. The international perspective project, which is developing risk stratification for breast cancer, aims to support the integration of its screening approach into clinical practice through comprehensive tool-building. Policies and guidelines for risk stratification-unlike those for population screening programs, which are currently well regulated-are still under development. Indeed, the development of guidelines for risk stratification reflects the translational aspects of perspective. Here, we describe the risk stratification process that was devised in the context of perspective, and we then explain the consensus-based method used to develop recommendations for breast cancer screening and prevention in a risk-stratification approach. Lastly, we discuss how the recommendations might affect current screening policies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Computer Science 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 10 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 21 October 2018.
All research outputs
#6,755,994
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Current Oncology
#485
of 2,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,895
of 416,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Oncology
#5
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,351 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 416,468 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.