↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Screening for oesophageal cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
Screening for oesophageal cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007883.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shujuan Yang, Siying Wu, Yuchuan Huang, Ying Shao, Xiao Y Chen, Liu Xian, Jianwei Zheng, Yuanyuan Wen, Xinyue Chen, Huangyuan Li, Chunxia Yang

Abstract

Oesophageal cancer is a global heath problem. The prognosis for advanced oesophageal cancer is generally unfavourable, but early-stage asymptomatic oesophageal cancer is basically curable and could achieve better survival rates. The two most commonly used tests are cytologic examination and endoscopy with mucosal iodine staining. The efficacy of the screening tests is controversial, and the true benefit and efficacy of screening remains uncertain because of the potential lead-time and length-time biases. This review was conducted to examine the evidence for the efficacy of screening for oesophageal cancer (squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma).

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 14%
Other 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 25 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Psychology 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 28 39%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 02 March 2016.
All research outputs
#6,388,073
of 22,696,971 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,209
of 12,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,586
of 278,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#114
of 192 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,696,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,307 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 278,751 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 192 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.