↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2007
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
501 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
415 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001216.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Hewitson, Paul P Glasziou, Les Irwig, Bernie Towler, Eila Watson

Abstract

Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, especially in the Western world. The human and financial costs of this disease have prompted considerable research efforts to evaluate the ability of screening tests to detect the cancer at an early curable stage. Tests that have been considered for population screening include variants of the faecal occult blood test, flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) may be achieved by the introduction of population-based screening programmes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 415 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Estonia 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 398 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 74 18%
Student > Bachelor 58 14%
Researcher 57 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 42 10%
Other 92 22%
Unknown 45 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 236 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 4%
Psychology 15 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 3%
Other 59 14%
Unknown 52 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 63. 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 08 June 2021.
All research outputs
#447,026
of 18,851,697 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#950
of 11,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,385
of 270,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#44
of 492 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,851,697 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 11,874 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 270,312 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 492 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 91% of its contemporaries.