↓ 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
16 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
494 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
419 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 16 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 419 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 402 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 76 18%
Student > Bachelor 59 14%
Researcher 57 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 42 10%
Other 93 22%
Unknown 45 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 240 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 4%
Psychology 16 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 3%
Other 58 14%
Unknown 52 12%

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 19 October 2021.
All research outputs
#449,909
of 19,196,040 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#950
of 11,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,354
of 272,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#44
of 489 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,196,040 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 11,946 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.1. 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 272,533 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 489 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.