↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Flexible sigmoidoscopy versus faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening in asymptomatic individuals

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
162 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
229 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Flexible sigmoidoscopy versus faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening in asymptomatic individuals
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009259.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Øyvind Holme, Michael Bretthauer, Atle Fretheim, Jan Odgaard-Jensen, Geir Hoff

Abstract

Colorectal cancer is the third most frequent cancer in the world. As the sojourn time for this cancer is several years and a good prognosis is associated with early stage diagnosis, screening has been implemented in a number of countries. Both screening with faecal occult blood test and flexible sigmoidoscopy have been shown to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer in randomised controlled trials. The comparative effectiveness of these tests on colorectal cancer mortality has, however, never been evaluated, and controversies exist over which test to choose.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 229 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 223 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 21%
Researcher 39 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 11%
Student > Bachelor 25 11%
Other 14 6%
Other 42 18%
Unknown 35 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 118 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 7%
Psychology 12 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Other 27 12%
Unknown 44 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 08 June 2018.
All research outputs
#446,248
of 14,747,975 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,193
of 11,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,946
of 165,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#17
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,747,975 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 165,472 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.