| Title |
Regular self‐examination or clinical examination for early detection of breast cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2003
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003373 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jan Peter Kösters, Peter C Gøtzsche |
| Abstract |
Breast self-examination and clinical breast examination have been promoted for many years as general screening methods to diagnose breast cancer at an earlier stage in order to decrease morbidity and or mortality. The possible benefits and harms remain unclear. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 437 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 74 | 17% |
| France | 35 | 8% |
| Argentina | 21 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 21 | 5% |
| Chile | 13 | 3% |
| Australia | 10 | 2% |
| Canada | 6 | 1% |
| Belgium | 6 | 1% |
| Colombia | 5 | 1% |
| Other | 42 | 10% |
| Unknown | 204 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 363 | 83% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 38 | 9% |
| Scientists | 25 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 11 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 406 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 396 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 60 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 54 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 42 | 10% |
| Researcher | 40 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 38 | 9% |
| Other | 68 | 17% |
| Unknown | 104 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 149 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 39 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 19 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 3% |
| Psychology | 11 | 3% |
| Other | 62 | 15% |
| Unknown | 114 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 434. 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 23 February 2024.
All research outputs
#66,647
of 25,738,558 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#127
of 13,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30
of 62,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,738,558 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 13,137 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.1. 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 62,368 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 41 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 97% of its contemporaries.