↓ Skip to main content

Flexible sigmoidoscopy versus faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening in asymptomatic individuals

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
122 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
197 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Flexible sigmoidoscopy versus faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening in asymptomatic individuals
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009259.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Øyvind Holme, Michael Bretthauer, Atle Fretheim, Jan Odgaard-Jensen, Geir Hoff

Abstract

Colorectal cancer is the third most frequent cancer in the world. As the sojourn time for this cancer is several years and a good prognosis is associated with early stage diagnosis, screening has been implemented in a number of countries. Both screening with faecal occult blood test and flexible sigmoidoscopy have been shown to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer in randomised controlled trials. The comparative effectiveness of these tests on colorectal cancer mortality has, however, never been evaluated, and controversies exist over which test to choose.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
Canada 2 1%
Chile 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Estonia 1 <1%
Unknown 187 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 22%
Researcher 38 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 14%
Student > Bachelor 25 13%
Unspecified 17 9%
Other 55 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 127 64%
Unspecified 22 11%
Psychology 12 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 5%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Other 29 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 08 June 2018.
All research outputs
#356,579
of 13,044,081 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,058
of 10,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,524
of 163,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#13
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,044,081 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 10,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 163,165 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 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.