↓ Skip to main content

Epidemiology and screening for renal cancer

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Urology, April 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 (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
145 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
174 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
Epidemiology and screening for renal cancer
Published in
World Journal of Urology, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00345-018-2286-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sabrina H. Rossi, Tobias Klatte, Juliet Usher-Smith, Grant D. Stewart

Abstract

The widespread use of abdominal imaging has affected the epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Despite this, over 25% of individuals with RCC have evidence of metastases at presentation. Screening for RCC has the potential to downstage the disease. We performed a literature review on the epidemiology of RCC and evidence base regarding screening. Furthermore, contemporary RCC epidemiology data was obtained for the United Kingdom and trends in age-standardised rates of incidence and mortality were analysed by annual percentage change statistics and joinpoint regression. The incidence of RCC in the UK increased by 3.1% annually from 1993 through 2014. Urinary dipstick is an inadequate screening tool due to low sensitivity and specificity. It is unlikely that CT would be recommended for population screening due to cost, radiation dose and increased potential for other incidental findings. Screening ultrasound has a sensitivity and specificity of 82-83% and 98-99%, respectively; however, accuracy is dependent on tumour size. No clinically validated urinary nor serum biomarkers have been identified. Major barriers to population screening include the relatively low prevalence of the disease, the potential for false positives and over-diagnosis of slow-growing RCCs. Individual patient risk-stratification based on a combination of risk factors may improve screening efficiency and minimise harms by identifying a group at high risk of RCC. The incidence of RCC is increasing. The optimal screening modality and target population remain to be elucidated. An analysis of the benefits and harms of screening for patients and society is warranted.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 174 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 174 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 33 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 11%
Student > Master 20 11%
Researcher 17 10%
Other 15 9%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 45 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Psychology 4 2%
Other 11 6%
Unknown 52 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 31 October 2022.
All research outputs
#4,086,858
of 22,416,700 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Urology
#377
of 2,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,319
of 300,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Urology
#10
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,416,700 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,053 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 300,187 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 73% 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 well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.