↓ Skip to main content

Uptake of Cancer Screening Tests Among Recipients of Solid Organ Transplantation

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Transplantation, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#34 of 2,975)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Uptake of Cancer Screening Tests Among Recipients of Solid Organ Transplantation
Published in
American Journal of Transplantation, May 2017
DOI 10.1111/ajt.14272
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. A. Acuna, R. Sutradhar, X. Camacho, C. Daly, M. E. Del Giudice, S. J. Kim, N. N. Baxter

Abstract

Population-based cancer screening recommendations are also suggested for solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR); however, recommendation adherence is unknown. In a population-based cohort of SOTR in Ontario between 1997 and 2010, we determined the uptake of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening tests and identified factors associated with up-to-date screening using recurrent event analysis. We identified 4436 SOTR eligible for colorectal, 2252 for cervical, and 1551 for breast cancer screening. Of those, 3437 (77.5%), 1572 (69.8%), and 1417 (91.4%), respectively, were not up-to-date for cancer screening tests during the observation period. However, these rates are likely an overestimate due to the inability to differentiate between tests done for screening or for diagnosis. SOTR with fewer comorbidities had higher rates of becoming screen up-to-date. Assessment by a primary care provider (PCP) was associated with becoming up-to-date with cancer screening (breast relative risk [RR] = 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-1.76, cervical RR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.06-1.57, colorectal RR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.15-1.48). Similar results were observed for continuity of care by transplant specialist at a transplant center. In conclusion, cancer screening for most SOTR does not adhere to standard recommendations. Involvement of PCPs in posttransplant care and continuity of care at a transplant center may improve the uptake of screening.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 20%
Researcher 3 20%
Unspecified 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Other 4 27%
Unknown 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 60%
Unspecified 3 20%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Unknown 1 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 80. 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 29 September 2017.
All research outputs
#174,098
of 12,342,987 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Transplantation
#34
of 2,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,465
of 267,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Transplantation
#2
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,342,987 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,975 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 267,372 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 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.