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 |
Variaciones en el proceso de confirmación diagnóstica entre unidades de cribado poblacional de cáncer de mama
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Gaceta Sanitaria, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.gaceta.2016.03.005 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carmen Natal, Ana Fernández-Somoano, Isabel Torá-Rocamora, Adonina Tardón, Xavier Castells |
| Abstract |
To analyse variations in the diagnostic confirmation process between screening units, variations in the outcome of each episode and the relationship between the use of the different diagnostic confirmation tests and the lesion detection rate. Observational study of variability of the standardised use of diagnostic and lesion detection tests in 34 breast cancer mass screening units participating in early-detection programmes in three Spanish regions from 2002-2011. The diagnostic test variation ratio in percentiles 25-75 ranged from 1.68 (further appointments) to 3.39 (fine-needle aspiration). The variation ratio in detection rates of benign lesions, ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive cancer were 2.79, 1.99 and 1.36, respectively. A positive relationship between rates of testing and detection rates was found with fine-needle aspiration-benign lesions (R(2): 0.53), fine-needle aspiration-invasive carcinoma (R(2): 0 28), core biopsy-benign lesions (R(2): 0.64), core biopsy-ductal carcinoma in situ (R(2): 0.61) and core biopsy-invasive carcinoma (R(2): 0.48). Variation in the use of invasive tests between the breast cancer screening units participating in early-detection programmes was found to be significantly higher than variations in lesion detection. Units which conducted more fine-needle aspiration tests had higher benign lesion detection rates, while units that conducted more core biopsies detected more benign lesions and cancer. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 35% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 4% |
| Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 9% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 May 2016.
All research outputs
#21,157,205
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Gaceta Sanitaria
#31
of 52 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#286,040
of 369,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gaceta Sanitaria
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 52 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 369,392 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.