↓ Skip to main content

Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 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
Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009632.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerald Gartlehner, Kylie Thaler, Andrea Chapman, Angela Kaminski-Hartenthaler, Dominik Berzaczy, Megan G Van Noord, Thomas H Helbich

Abstract

Breast cancer is the most common malignant disease diagnosed in women worldwide. Screening with mammography has the ability to detect breast cancer at an early stage. The diagnostic accuracy of mammography screening largely depends on the radiographic density of the imaged breasts. In radiographically dense breasts, non-calcified breast cancers are more likely to be missed than in fatty breasts. As a consequence, some cancers are not detected by mammography screening. Supporters of adjunct ultrasonography to the screening regimen for breast cancer argue that it might be a safe and inexpensive approach to reduce the false negative rates of the screening process. Critics, however, are concerned that performing supplemental ultrasonography on women at average risk will also increase the rate of false positive findings and can lead to unnecessary biopsies and treatments.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ecuador 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 159 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 36 22%
Student > Master 20 12%
Researcher 20 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Other 30 18%
Unknown 30 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 11%
Computer Science 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 20 12%
Unknown 38 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 18 October 2018.
All research outputs
#902,510
of 14,551,860 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,701
of 11,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,363
of 151,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#21
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,551,860 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,015 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 151,409 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.