↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
224 Mendeley
Title
Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009632.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerald Gartlehner, Kylie Thaler, Andrea Chapman, Angela Kaminski-Hartenthaler, Dominik Berzaczy, Megan G Van Noord, Thomas H Helbich

Abstract

Breast cancer is the most common malignant disease diagnosed in women worldwide. Screening with mammography has the ability to detect breast cancer at an early stage. The diagnostic accuracy of mammography screening largely depends on the radiographic density of the imaged breasts. In radiographically dense breasts, non-calcified breast cancers are more likely to be missed than in fatty breasts. As a consequence, some cancers are not detected by mammography screening. Supporters of adjunct ultrasonography to the screening regimen for breast cancer argue that it might be a safe and inexpensive approach to reduce the false negative rates of the screening process. Critics, however, are concerned that performing supplemental ultrasonography on women at average risk will also increase the rate of false positive findings and can lead to unnecessary biopsies and treatments.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 224 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ecuador 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 217 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 47 21%
Student > Master 26 12%
Researcher 23 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 41 18%
Unknown 53 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 93 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 2%
Computer Science 5 2%
Other 26 12%
Unknown 62 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,488,811
of 21,224,592 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,526
of 12,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,685
of 172,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#26
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,224,592 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,091 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 172,534 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.