↓ Skip to main content

Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) versus colonoscopy for surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness study

Overview of attention for article published in Gut, December 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 (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
84 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) versus colonoscopy for surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness study
Published in
Gut, December 2018
DOI 10.1136/gutjnl-2018-317297
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda J Cross, Kate Wooldrage, Emma C Robbins, Ines Kralj-Hans, Eilidh MacRae, Carolyn Piggott, Iain Stenson, Aaron Prendergast, Bhavita Patel, Kevin Pack, Rosemary Howe, Nicholas Swart, Julia Snowball, Stephen W Duffy, Stephen Morris, Christian von Wagner, Stephen P Halloran, Wendy S Atkin

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 84 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Other 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 10 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 11%
Chemistry 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 13 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 67. 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 October 2019.
All research outputs
#341,496
of 16,055,825 outputs
Outputs from Gut
#202
of 5,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,509
of 389,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gut
#12
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,055,825 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 5,596 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 389,726 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 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.