↓ Skip to main content

Reimagining the diagnostic pathway for gastrointestinal cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, February 2018
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 (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
30 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
Reimagining the diagnostic pathway for gastrointestinal cancer
Published in
Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, February 2018
DOI 10.1038/nrgastro.2018.1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Greg Rubin, Fiona Walter, Jon Emery, Niek de Wit

Abstract

A crisis is looming for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal cancers, one grounded only partly in the steady increase in their overall incidence. Public demand for diagnostic tests to be undertaken early and at lower levels of risk is reflected in early diagnosis being a widely held policy objective for reasons of both clinical outcome and patient experience. In the UK, urgent referrals for suspected lower gastrointestinal cancer have increased by 78% in the past 6 years, with parallel increases in endoscopy and imaging activity. Such growth in demand is unsustainable with current models of care. If gastrointestinal cancer diagnosis is to be affordable, the roles of professionals and their interactions with each other will need to be reframed while retaining public confidence in the process. In this Perspective, we consider how the relationship between medical specialists and generalists could be redefined to make better use of the skills of each while delivering optimal clinical outcomes and a good patient experience.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 26%
Researcher 8 24%
Unspecified 7 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 47%
Unspecified 9 26%
Psychology 3 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 4 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. 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 24 October 2018.
All research outputs
#295,019
of 13,668,760 outputs
Outputs from Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology
#88
of 1,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,121
of 350,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology
#4
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,668,760 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 1,530 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 350,780 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 42 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 90% of its contemporaries.