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 |
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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 States | 2 | 67% |
| Mexico | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 28 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 24% |
| Unknown | 4 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 66% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
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
#13,280,796
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,919
of 8,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,804
of 136,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#36
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,237 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 136,065 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.