↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Screening for prostate cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2013
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
441 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
704 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Screening for prostate cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004720.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dragan Ilic, Molly M Neuberger, Mia Djulbegovic, Philipp Dahm

Abstract

Any form of screening aims to reduce disease-specific and overall mortality, and to improve a person's future quality of life. Screening for prostate cancer has generated considerable debate within the medical and broader community, as demonstrated by the varying recommendations made by medical organizations and governed by national policies. To better inform individual patient decision-making and health policy decisions, we need to consider the entire body of data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on prostate cancer screening summarised in a systematic review. In 2006, our Cochrane review identified insufficient evidence to either support or refute the use of routine mass, selective, or opportunistic screening for prostate cancer. An update of the review in 2010 included three additional trials. Meta-analysis of the five studies included in the 2010 review concluded that screening did not significantly reduce prostate cancer-specific mortality. In the past two years, several updates to studies included in the 2010 review have been published thereby providing the rationale for this update of the 2010 systematic review.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 104 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 704 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 4 <1%
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Estonia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 692 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 119 17%
Student > Master 105 15%
Researcher 78 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 63 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 52 7%
Other 130 18%
Unknown 157 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 297 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 46 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 33 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 3%
Social Sciences 19 3%
Other 94 13%
Unknown 193 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 316. 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 18 November 2022.
All research outputs
#89,277
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#164
of 12,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#555
of 283,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,334 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 283,024 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 171 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 98% of its contemporaries.