↓ Skip to main content

Programa de cribado poblacional de cáncer colorrectal en Aragón. Primeros resultados

Overview of attention for article published in Gaceta Sanitaria, November 2018
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 (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Programa de cribado poblacional de cáncer colorrectal en Aragón. Primeros resultados
Published in
Gaceta Sanitaria, November 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.gaceta.2017.05.014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mª Esther Solé Llop, Mabel Cano del Pozo, José-Ignacio García Montero, Patricia Carrera-Lasfuentes, Ángel Lanas

Abstract

To describe preliminary findings from the colorectal cancer screening programme in Aragon (Spain) to evaluate its implementation. We have collected data from the first year of the program (2014) based on faecal occult blood immunochemical (FOBTi) test in patients 60-69 years old. We report "indicators" defined by the "Red Nacional de Cribado". Invited population after exclusions: 12,518. Program participation rate: 45.28% (95%CI: 44.41-46.15). Inadequate tests: 0.21% (95%CI: 0.12-0.37); positive FOBTi test 10.75% (95%CI: 9.97-11.58) and colonoscopy acceptance 95.07% (95%CI: 93.04-96.52). Colonoscopy was appropriate and complete in 97.58% (95%CI: 95.98-98.55) of cases. The high- and low-risk adenoma detection rates were 14.7‰ (95%CI: 11.9-18.2) and 5.55‰ (95%CI: 3.9-7.8) respectively. The positive predictive value for any adenoma was 58.55% (95%CI: 54.49-62.49) and for invasive cancer was 5.36% (95%CI: 3.8-7.51). The indicator analysis of the ongoing programme suggests the programme is being implemented correctly in our community.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 25%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 5 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Mathematics 1 6%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 38%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 15 September 2017.
All research outputs
#2,902,395
of 12,149,178 outputs
Outputs from Gaceta Sanitaria
#98
of 422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,775
of 265,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gaceta Sanitaria
#4
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,149,178 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 422 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 265,152 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.