↓ Skip to main content

Cancer screening recommendations: an international comparison of high income countries

Overview of attention for article published in Public Health Reviews, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#18 of 148)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
27 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Cancer screening recommendations: an international comparison of high income countries
Published in
Public Health Reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40985-018-0080-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark H. Ebell, Thuy Nhu Thai, Kyle J. Royalty

Abstract

Recommendations regarding cancer screening vary from country to country, and may also vary within countries depending on the organization making the recommendations. The goal of this study was to summarize the cancer screening recommendations from the 21 countries with the highest per capita spending on healthcare. Cancer screening guidelines were identified for each country based on a review of the medical literature, internet searches, and contact with key informants in most countries. The highest level recommendation was identified for each country, in the order of national recommendation, cancer society recommendation, or medical specialty society recommendation. Breast cancer screening recommendations were generally consistent across countries, most commonly recommending mammography biennially from ages 50 to 69 or 70 years. In the USA, specialty societies generally offered more intensive screening recommendations. All countries also recommend cervical cancer screening, although there is some heterogeneity regarding the test (cytology or HPV or both) and the age of initiation and screening interval. Most countries recommend colorectal cancer screening using fecal immunochemical (FIT) testing, while only seven countries recommend general or selective screening for prostate cancer, and a similar number explicitly recommend against screening for prostate cancer. Screening for lung and skin cancer is only recommended by a few countries. Greater per capita healthcare expenditures are not associated with greater screening intensity, with the possible exception of prostate cancer. Guidelines for cancer screening differ between countries, with areas of commonality but also clear differences. Recommendations have important commonalities for well-established cancer screening programs such as breast and cervical cancer, with greater variation between countries regarding prostate, colorectal, lung, and skin cancer screening. Ideally, recommendations should be made by a professionally diverse, independent panel of experts that make evidence-based recommendations regarding screening based on the benefits, harms, and available resources in that country's context.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 35%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 16 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 October 2018.
All research outputs
#825,423
of 14,395,295 outputs
Outputs from Public Health Reviews
#18
of 148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,724
of 274,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Public Health Reviews
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,395,295 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 274,956 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them