↓ Skip to main content

Meta-analysis of the prevalence of renal cancer detected by abdominal ultrasonography

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Surgery, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Meta-analysis of the prevalence of renal cancer detected by abdominal ultrasonography
Published in
British Journal of Surgery, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/bjs.10523
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. H. Rossi, R. Hsu, C. Blick, V. Goh, P. Nathan, D. Nicol, S. Fleming, M. Sweeting, E. C. F. Wilson, G. D. Stewart

Abstract

The potential for an ultrasound-based screening programme for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) to improve survival through early detection has been the subject of much debate. The prevalence of ultrasound-detected asymptomatic RCC is an important first step to establishing whether a screening programme may be feasible. A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase was performed up to March 2016 to identify studies reporting the prevalence of renal masses and RCC. Two populations of patients were chosen: asymptomatic individuals undergoing screening ultrasonography and patients undergoing ultrasonography for abdominal symptoms not related to RCC. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Study quality was evaluated using a validated eight-point checklist. Sixteen studies (413 551 patients) were included in the final analysis. The pooled prevalence of renal mass was 0·36 (95 per cent c.i. 0·23 to 0·52) per cent and the prevalence of histologically proven RCC was 0·10 (0·06 to 0·15) per cent. The prevalence of RCC was more than double in studies from Europe and North America than in those from Asia: 0·17 (0·09 to 0·27) versus 0·06 (0·03 to 0·09) per cent respectively. Data on 205 screen-detected RCCs showed that 84·4 per cent of tumours were stage T1-T2 N0, 13·7 per cent were T3-T4 N0, and only 2·0 per cent had positive nodes or metastases at diagnosis. At least one RCC would be detected per 1000 individuals screened. The majority of tumours identified are early stage (T1-T2).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 30%
Researcher 5 14%
Unspecified 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 8%
Other 12 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 76%
Unspecified 4 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%

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 11 May 2017.
All research outputs
#3,384,094
of 12,350,075 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Surgery
#1,085
of 3,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,124
of 266,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Surgery
#60
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,350,075 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,107 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 266,513 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.