↓ Skip to main content

Understanding the contribution of family history to colorectal cancer risk and its clinical implications: A state‐of‐the‐science review

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer (0008543X), June 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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
15 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
135 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
Title
Understanding the contribution of family history to colorectal cancer risk and its clinical implications: A state‐of‐the‐science review
Published in
Cancer (0008543X), June 2016
DOI 10.1002/cncr.30080
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan T Lowery, Dennis J Ahnen, Paul C Schroy, Heather Hampel, Nancy Baxter, C Richard Boland, Randall W Burt, Lynn Butterly, Megan Doerr, Mary Doroshenk, W Gregory Feero, Nora Henrikson, Uri Ladabaum, David Lieberman, Elizabeth G McFarland, Susan K Peterson, Martha Raymond, N Jewel Samadder, Sapna Syngal, Thomas K Weber, Ann G Zauber, Robert Smith

Abstract

Persons with a family history (FH) of colorectal cancer (CRC) or adenomas that are not due to known hereditary syndromes have an increased risk for CRC. An understanding of these risks, screening recommendations, and screening behaviors can inform strategies for reducing the CRC burden in these families. A comprehensive review of the literature published within the past 10 years has been performed to assess what is known about cancer risk, screening guidelines, adherence and barriers to screening, and effective interventions in persons with an FH of CRC and to identify FH tools used to identify these individuals and inform care. Existing data show that having 1 affected first-degree relative (FDR) increases the CRC risk 2-fold, and the risk increases with multiple affected FDRs and a younger age at diagnosis. There is variability in screening recommendations across consensus guidelines. Screening adherence is <50% and is lower in persons under the age of 50 years. A provider's recommendation, multiple affected relatives, and family encouragement facilitate screening; insufficient collection of FH, low knowledge of guidelines, and poor family communication are important barriers. Effective interventions incorporate strategies for overcoming barriers, but these have not been broadly tested in clinical settings. Four strategies for reducing CRC in persons with familial risk are suggested: 1) improving the collection and utilization of the FH of cancer, 2) establishing a consensus for screening guidelines by FH, 3) enhancing provider-patient knowledge of guidelines and communication about CRC risk, and 4) encouraging survivors to promote screening within their families and partnering with existing screening programs to expand their reach to high-risk groups. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 137 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 14%
Student > Master 16 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Other 11 8%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 37 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 42 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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 04 August 2023.
All research outputs
#906,473
of 25,593,129 outputs
Outputs from Cancer (0008543X)
#751
of 14,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,948
of 354,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer (0008543X)
#20
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,593,129 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 354,793 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.