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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 85 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 12% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 19% |
| Unknown | 31 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 7% |
| Psychology | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 35 | 41% |
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 02 March 2016.
All research outputs
#7,387,249
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,415
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,439
of 286,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#121
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 286,552 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 197 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.