You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Mammographic screening debate on study design: a need to move the field forward
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-10-164 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Giske Ursin |
| Abstract |
The mammographic screening debate has been running for decades. The temperature of this debate is unusually high, and all participants, regardless of viewpoint, seem to have a conflict of interest. Another unusual aspect of this debate is the focus on study design, and in particular on designs that some think exceeded their usefulness decades ago. What are the questions that remain to be answered in this debate? Are there methodological issues that have not been adequately addressed? Do we have the right tools to provide up-to-date answers to how women can best protect themselves against dying from breast cancer? This commentary discusses some of the current issues.See related Opinion articles http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/106 and http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/163. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 67% |
| Peru | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 33% |
| Researcher | 3 | 33% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 22% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 67% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 21 February 2014.
All research outputs
#2,656,845
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,643
of 3,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,368
of 278,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#36
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,400 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 278,733 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.