↓ Skip to main content

Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Women With Familial Risk for Breast Cancer With Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Overview of attention for article published in JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 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
Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Women With Familial Risk for Breast Cancer With Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Published in
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, August 2013
DOI 10.1093/jnci/djt203
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sepideh Saadatmand, Madeleine M. A. Tilanus-Linthorst, Emiel J. T. Rutgers, Nicoline Hoogerbrugge, Jan C. Oosterwijk, Rob A. E. M. Tollenaar, Maartje Hooning, Claudette E. Loo, Inge-Marie Obdeijn, Eveline A. M. Heijnsdijk, Harry J. de Koning

Abstract

To reduce mortality, women with a family history of breast cancer are often screened with mammography before age 50 years. Additional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves sensitivity and is cost-effective for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. However, for women with a family history without a proven mutation, cost-effectiveness is unclear.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ecuador 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 101 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 14%
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Master 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Other 10 10%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 23 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 21 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 01 January 2019.
All research outputs
#5,470,512
of 25,838,141 outputs
Outputs from JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
#3,008
of 7,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,737
of 210,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
#40
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,838,141 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,890 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 210,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.