↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a comparison of guaiac-based faecal occult blood testing, faecal immunochemical testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Cancer, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Cost-effectiveness of population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a comparison of guaiac-based faecal occult blood testing, faecal immunochemical testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy
Published in
British Journal of Cancer, February 2012
DOI 10.1038/bjc.2011.580
Pubmed ID
Authors

L Sharp, L Tilson, S Whyte, A O'Ceilleachair, C Walsh, C Usher, P Tappenden, J Chilcott, A Staines, M Barry, H Comber

Abstract

Several colorectal cancer-screening tests are available, but it is uncertain which provides the best balance of risks and benefits within a screening programme. We evaluated cost-effectiveness of a population-based screening programme in Ireland based on (i) biennial guaiac-based faecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) at ages 55-74, with reflex faecal immunochemical testing (FIT); (ii) biennial FIT at ages 55-74; and (iii) once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG) at age 60.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 3%
Spain 1 <1%
Estonia 1 <1%
Unknown 136 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 15%
Student > Master 22 15%
Other 9 6%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Other 31 22%
Unknown 22 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 43%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 26 18%
Unknown 30 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 23 March 2019.
All research outputs
#5,931,133
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Cancer
#4,285
of 10,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,109
of 155,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Cancer
#31
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,348 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 155,000 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 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 63% of its contemporaries.