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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| 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 |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 78 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 26 | 33% |
| Spain | 15 | 19% |
| United States | 3 | 4% |
| Australia | 3 | 4% |
| Uruguay | 1 | 1% |
| Argentina | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 29 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 52 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 16 | 21% |
| Scientists | 8 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 99 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 19 | 19% |
| Unknown | 30 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 6% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 13% |
| Unknown | 34 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 64. 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
#683,973
of 25,756,531 outputs
Outputs from Gut
#394
of 7,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,135
of 447,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gut
#5
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,756,531 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 7,433 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 447,767 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 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.