| Title |
Screening for breast cancer with mammography
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd001877.pub5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter C Gøtzsche, Karsten Juhl Jørgensen |
| Abstract |
A variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 717 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 61 | 9% |
| United States | 53 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 52 | 7% |
| Spain | 51 | 7% |
| France | 31 | 4% |
| Chile | 13 | 2% |
| Canada | 11 | 2% |
| Ecuador | 11 | 2% |
| Saudi Arabia | 8 | 1% |
| Other | 85 | 12% |
| Unknown | 341 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 611 | 85% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 49 | 7% |
| Scientists | 41 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 14 | 2% |
| Unknown | 2 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | <1% |
| Germany | 3 | <1% |
| Colombia | 2 | <1% |
| Denmark | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1084 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 190 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 158 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 96 | 9% |
| Researcher | 93 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 75 | 7% |
| Other | 201 | 18% |
| Unknown | 293 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 383 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 92 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 43 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 40 | 4% |
| Engineering | 32 | 3% |
| Other | 185 | 17% |
| Unknown | 331 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 835. 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 22 September 2023.
All research outputs
#20,555
of 24,505,736 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#41
of 12,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74
of 201,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2
of 294 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,505,736 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 12,927 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 201,677 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 294 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 99% of its contemporaries.