↓ Skip to main content

Risk Prediction Models for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Prevention Research, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Risk Prediction Models for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review
Published in
Cancer Prevention Research, October 2015
DOI 10.1158/1940-6207.capr-15-0274
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juliet A. Usher-Smith, Fiona M. Walter, Jon D. Emery, Aung K. Win, Simon J. Griffin

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in Europe and the United States. Survival is strongly related to stage at diagnosis and population-based screening reduces CRC incidence and mortality. Stratifying the population by risk offers the potential of improving the efficiency of screening. In this systematic review we searched Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for primary research studies reporting or validating models to predict future risk of primary CRC for asymptomatic individuals. 12,808 papers were identified from the literature search and nine through citation searching. 52 risk models were included. Where reported (n=37), half the models had acceptable-to-good discrimination (c-statistic>0.7) in the derivation sample. Calibration was less commonly assessed (n=21), but overall acceptable. In external validation studies, 10 models showed acceptable discrimination (c-statistic 0.71-0.78). These include two with only three variables (age, gender and BMI; age, gender and family history of CRC). A small number of prediction models developed from case-control studies of genetic biomarkers also show some promise but require further external validation using population-based samples. Further research should focus on the feasibility and impact of incorporating such models into stratified screening programmes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 84 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 21%
Researcher 18 21%
Unspecified 13 15%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 21 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 45%
Unspecified 17 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 14 16%

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 15 June 2016.
All research outputs
#6,366,876
of 12,555,175 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Prevention Research
#470
of 881 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,098
of 250,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Prevention Research
#13
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,555,175 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 881 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 250,547 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 48 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 72% of its contemporaries.