↓ Skip to main content

Relationship between risk information on total colonoscopy and patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening options: Analysis using the Analytic Hierarchy Process

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, May 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
Relationship between risk information on total colonoscopy and patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening options: Analysis using the Analytic Hierarchy Process
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, May 2008
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-8-106
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuichi Katsumura, Hideo Yasunaga, Tomoaki Imamura, Kazuhiko Ohe, Hiroshi Oyama

Abstract

Although the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) is the preferred program for colorectal cancer screening in Japan, many medical institutions have recently begun to provide total colonoscopy (TCS) as an initial screening program. However, there are a number of severe risks associated with TCS, such as colorectal bleeding and perforation. The justification for performing such a procedure on healthy patients remains unclear. We used the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to investigate whether risk information on TCS affects patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 2%
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 1 2%
Unknown 43 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 11 24%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Other 14 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 31%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 24%
Unspecified 8 18%
Engineering 3 7%
Decision Sciences 3 7%
Other 6 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 April 2014.
All research outputs
#7,762,312
of 12,372,945 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,894
of 4,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,297
of 193,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#21
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,372,945 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 193,310 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 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.