↓ Skip to main content

Risk prediction tools for cancer in primary care

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Cancer, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
Title
Risk prediction tools for cancer in primary care
Published in
British Journal of Cancer, December 2015
DOI 10.1038/bjc.2015.409
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juliet Usher-Smith, Jon Emery, Willie Hamilton, Simon J Griffin, Fiona M Walter

Abstract

Numerous risk tools are now available, which predict either current or future risk of a cancer diagnosis. In theory, these tools have the potential to improve patient outcomes through enhancing the consistency and quality of clinical decision-making, facilitating equitable and cost-effective distribution of finite resources such as screening tests or preventive interventions, and encouraging behaviour change. These potential uses have been recognised by the National Cancer Institute as an 'area of extraordinary opportunity' and an increasing number of risk prediction models continue to be developed. The data on predictive utility (discrimination and calibration) of these models suggest that some have potential for clinical application; however, the focus on implementation and impact is much more recent and there remains considerable uncertainty about their clinical utility and how to implement them in order to maximise benefits and minimise harms such as over-medicalisation, anxiety and false reassurance. If the potential benefits of risk prediction models are to be realised in clinical practice, further validation of the underlying risk models and research to assess the acceptability, clinical impact and economic implications of incorporating them in practice are needed.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 3 December 2015; doi:10.1038/bjc.2015.409 www.bjcancer.com.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 79 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 20%
Student > Master 10 12%
Other 7 8%
Unspecified 6 7%
Other 21 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 40%
Unspecified 15 18%
Psychology 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Other 15 18%

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 05 December 2017.
All research outputs
#6,344,131
of 12,253,439 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Cancer
#6,378
of 7,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,127
of 321,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Cancer
#62
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,253,439 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,813 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 321,242 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.