↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
36 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
142 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
377 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004150.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Brocklehurst, Omar Kujan, Lucy O'Malley, Graham R Ogden, Simon Shepherd, Anne-Marie Glenny

Abstract

Oral cancer is an important global healthcare problem, its incidence is increasing and late-stage presentation is common. Screening programmes have been introduced for a number of major cancers and have proved effective in their early detection. Given the high morbidity and mortality rates associated with oral cancer, there is a need to determine the effectiveness of a screening programme for this disease, either as a targeted, opportunistic or population-based measure. Evidence exists from modelled data that a visual oral examination of high-risk individuals may be a cost-effective screening strategy and the development and use of adjunctive aids and biomarkers is becoming increasingly common.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 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 377 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 368 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 61 16%
Student > Bachelor 42 11%
Researcher 42 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 28 7%
Other 80 21%
Unknown 85 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 163 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 3%
Psychology 10 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 2%
Other 50 13%
Unknown 110 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 10 November 2020.
All research outputs
#588,760
of 18,891,791 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,345
of 11,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,050
of 284,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#13
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,891,791 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 11,887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 284,050 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.