| Title |
Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Women With Familial Risk for Breast Cancer With Magnetic Resonance Imaging
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1093/jnci/djt203 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sepideh Saadatmand, Madeleine M. A. Tilanus-Linthorst, Emiel J. T. Rutgers, Nicoline Hoogerbrugge, Jan C. Oosterwijk, Rob A. E. M. Tollenaar, Maartje Hooning, Claudette E. Loo, Inge-Marie Obdeijn, Eveline A. M. Heijnsdijk, Harry J. de Koning |
| Abstract |
To reduce mortality, women with a family history of breast cancer are often screened with mammography before age 50 years. Additional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves sensitivity and is cost-effective for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. However, for women with a family history without a proven mutation, cost-effectiveness is unclear. |
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 | 2 | 29% |
| France | 1 | 14% |
| Belgium | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 43% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ecuador | 2 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 102 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 14% |
| Researcher | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 10% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Other | 20 | 19% |
| Unknown | 23 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 48% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 14% |
| Unknown | 21 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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
#5,339,368
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
#2,976
of 7,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,308
of 209,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
#40
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,845 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 209,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 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 65% of its contemporaries.