| Title |
Recommendations for Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Testing in Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Clinical Practice Guideline Update
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Oncology, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1200/jco.2013.50.9984 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Antonio C. Wolff, M. Elizabeth H. Hammond, David G. Hicks, Mitch Dowsett, Lisa M. McShane, Kimberly H. Allison, Donald C. Allred, John Bartlett, Michael Bilous, Patrick Fitzgibbons, Wedad Hanna, Robert B. Jenkins, Pamela B. Mangu, Soonmyung Paik, Edith A. Perez, Michael F. Press, Patricia A. Spears, Gail H. Vance, Giuseppe Viale, Daniel F. Hayes |
| Abstract |
To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing and its utility as a predictive marker in invasive breast cancer. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 | 11 | 38% |
| Australia | 2 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Argentina | 1 | 3% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 3% |
| India | 1 | 3% |
| Belgium | 1 | 3% |
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 8 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 69% |
| Scientists | 5 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 511 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 511 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 58 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 53 | 10% |
| Researcher | 47 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 46 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 36 | 7% |
| Other | 96 | 19% |
| Unknown | 175 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 137 | 27% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 76 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 14 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 14 | 3% |
| Other | 63 | 12% |
| Unknown | 189 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 141. 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 26 March 2024.
All research outputs
#298,841
of 25,782,229 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#541
of 22,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,226
of 223,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#4
of 244 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,782,229 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 22,250 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 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 223,254 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 244 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 98% of its contemporaries.