↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of family history-based colorectal cancer screening in Australia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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 family history-based colorectal cancer screening in Australia
Published in
BMC Cancer, April 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2407-14-261
Pubmed ID
Authors

Driss A Ouakrim, Alex Boussioutas, Trevor Lockett, John L Hopper, Mark A Jenkins

Abstract

With 14.234 diagnoses and over 4047 deaths reported in 2007, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer and second most common cause of cancer-related mortality in Australia. The direct treatment cost has recently been estimated to be around AU$1.2 billion for the year 2011, which corresponds to a four-fold increase, compared the cost reported in 2001. Excluding CRCs due to known rare genetic disorders, 20% to 25% of all CRCs occur in a familial aggregation setting due to genetic variants or shared environmental risk factors that are yet to be characterised. A targeted screening strategy addressed to this segment of the population is a potentially valuable tool for reducing the overall burden of CRC.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 19%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 11 23%
Unknown 7 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 45%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 6%
Chemistry 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 10 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 02 May 2014.
All research outputs
#3,577,283
of 12,372,945 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#969
of 4,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,495
of 164,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#5
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,372,945 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,558 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 164,742 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 62% of its contemporaries.