↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Optimal breast cancer screening strategies for older women: current perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
Optimal breast cancer screening strategies for older women: current perspectives
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, February 2016
DOI 10.2147/cia.s65304
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dejana Braithwaite, Joshua Demb, Louise M Henderson

Abstract

Breast cancer is a major cause of cancer-related deaths among older women, aged 65 years or older. Screening mammography has been shown to be effective in reducing breast cancer mortality in women aged 50-74 years but not among those aged 75 years or older. Given the large heterogeneity in comorbidity status and life expectancy among older women, controversy remains over screening mammography in this population. Diminished life expectancy with aging may decrease the potential screening benefit and increase the risk of harms. In this review, we summarize the evidence on screening mammography utilization, performance, and outcomes and highlight evidence gaps. Optimizing the screening strategy will involve separating older women who will benefit from screening from those who will not benefit by using information on comorbidity status and life expectancy. This review has identified areas related to screening mammography in older women that warrant additional research, including the need to evaluate emerging screening technologies, such as tomosynthesis among older women and precision cancer screening. In the absence of randomized controlled trials, the benefits and harms of continued screening mammography in older women need to be estimated using both population-based cohort data and simulation models.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 1%
Unknown 70 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 6 8%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 27 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 28%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 27 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 July 2016.
All research outputs
#16,862,842
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,184
of 1,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,471
of 407,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#26
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,973 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 407,504 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.