↓ Skip to main content

Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2007
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
466 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
353 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001216.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Hewitson, Paul P Glasziou, Les Irwig, Bernie Towler, Eila Watson

Abstract

Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, especially in the Western world. The human and financial costs of this disease have prompted considerable research efforts to evaluate the ability of screening tests to detect the cancer at an early curable stage. Tests that have been considered for population screening include variants of the faecal occult blood test, flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) may be achieved by the introduction of population-based screening programmes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 353 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 1%
United States 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Estonia 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 336 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 64 18%
Student > Bachelor 56 16%
Researcher 52 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 12%
Other 31 9%
Other 81 23%
Unknown 28 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 210 59%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 4%
Psychology 15 4%
Social Sciences 11 3%
Other 49 14%
Unknown 34 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 22 February 2017.
All research outputs
#426,628
of 15,294,947 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,086
of 11,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,242
of 255,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#58
of 503 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,294,947 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,167 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 255,880 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 503 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.