↓ Skip to main content

The Manchester guidelines for contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgical Oncology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
The Manchester guidelines for contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12957-015-0638-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Narendra Nath Basu, G L Ross, D G Evans, L Barr

Abstract

Rates of contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM) are rising, despite a decreasing global incidence of contralateral breast cancer. Reasons for requesting this procedure are complex, and we have previously shown a variable practice amongst breast and plastic surgeons in England. We propose a protocol, based on a published systematic review, a national UK survey and the Manchester experience of CRRM. We reviewed the literature for risk factors for contralateral breast cancer and have devised a 5-step process that includes history taking, calculating contralateral breast cancer risk, cooling off period/counselling, multi-disciplinary assessment and consent. Members of the multi-disciplinary team included the breast surgeon, plastic surgeon and geneticist, who formulated guidelines. A simple formula to calculate the life-time risk of contralateral breast cancer has been devised. This allows stratification of breast cancer patients into different risk-groups: low, above average, moderate and high risk. Recommendations vary according to different risk groups. These guidelines are a useful tool for clinicians counselling women requesting CRRM. Risk assessment is mandatory in this group of patients, and our formula allows evidence-based recommendations to be made.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Czechia 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 64 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 15%
Other 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Student > Master 6 9%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 15 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 18 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 May 2016.
All research outputs
#6,139,127
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#168
of 2,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,716
of 264,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#7
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,043 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 264,106 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.