↓ Skip to main content

Screening for oesophageal cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1 Mendeley
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 oesophageal cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007883.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shujuan Yang, Siying Wu, Yuchuan Huang, Ying Shao, Xiao Y Chen, Liu Xian, Jianwei Zheng, Yuanyuan Wen, Xinyue Chen, Huangyuan Li, Chunxia Yang

Abstract

Oesophageal cancer is a global heath problem. The prognosis for advanced oesophageal cancer is generally unfavourable, but early-stage asymptomatic oesophageal cancer is basically curable and could achieve better survival rates. The two most commonly used tests are cytologic examination and endoscopy with mucosal iodine staining. The efficacy of the screening tests is controversial, and the true benefit and efficacy of screening remains uncertain because of the potential lead-time and length-time biases. This review was conducted to examine the evidence for the efficacy of screening for oesophageal cancer (squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma).

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 1 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 25 September 2013.
All research outputs
#3,177,149
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,497
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,866
of 250,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#278
of 434 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 250,943 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 434 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.