↓ Skip to main content

Colorectal cancer screening for average‐risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

Overview of attention for article published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians , May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 1,040)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
1383 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1341 Mendeley
Title
Colorectal cancer screening for average‐risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society
Published in
CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians , May 2018
DOI 10.3322/caac.21457
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew M.D. Wolf, Elizabeth T.H. Fontham, Timothy R. Church, Christopher R. Flowers, Carmen E. Guerra, Samuel J. LaMonte, Ruth Etzioni, Matthew T. McKenna, Kevin C. Oeffinger, Ya‐Chen Tina Shih, Louise C. Walter, Kimberly S. Andrews, Otis W. Brawley, Durado Brooks, Stacey A. Fedewa, Deana Manassaram‐Baptiste, Rebecca L. Siegel, Richard C. Wender, Robert A. Smith

Abstract

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model-recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average-risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high-sensitivity, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;000:000-000. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 338 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 1,341 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1341 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 151 11%
Student > Master 128 10%
Researcher 117 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 100 7%
Other 96 7%
Other 257 19%
Unknown 492 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 441 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 103 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 61 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 2%
Unspecified 24 2%
Other 144 11%
Unknown 540 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2385. 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 April 2024.
All research outputs
#3,404
of 25,795,662 outputs
Outputs from CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians
#8
of 1,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38
of 345,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,795,662 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,040 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 83.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 345,528 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 13 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 92% of its contemporaries.