↓ Skip to main content

Double sampling of a faecal immunochemical test is not superior to single sampling for detection of colorectal neoplasia: a colonoscopy controlled prospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
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.
Title
Double sampling of a faecal immunochemical test is not superior to single sampling for detection of colorectal neoplasia: a colonoscopy controlled prospective cohort study
Published in
BMC Cancer, October 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2407-11-434
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frank A Oort, Sietze T van Turenhout, Veerle MH Coupé, René WM van der Hulst, Eric IC Wesdorp, Jochim S Terhaar sive Droste, Ilhame Ben Larbi, Shannon L Kanis, Edwin van Hengel, Anneke A Bouman, Gerrit A Meijer, Chris JJ Mulder

Abstract

A single sampled faecal immunochemical test (FIT) has moderate sensitivity for colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas. Repeated FIT sampling could improve test sensitivity. The aim of the present study is to determine whether any of three different strategies of double FIT sampling has a better combination of sensitivity and specificity than single FIT sampling.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 4%
Unknown 27 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 25%
Student > Master 4 14%
Other 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 64%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Chemistry 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 August 2015.
All research outputs
#2,268,169
of 5,552,362 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#746
of 2,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,708
of 71,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#18
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,552,362 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 58th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,962 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 71,347 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.