↓ Skip to main content

Preventive treatments for breast cancer: recent developments

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Oncology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Preventive treatments for breast cancer: recent developments
Published in
Clinical and Translational Oncology, December 2014
DOI 10.1007/s12094-014-1250-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. E. Alés-Martínez, A. Ruiz, J. I. Chacón, A. Lluch Hernández, M. Ramos, O. Córdoba, E. Aguirre, A. Barnadas, C. Jara, S. González, A. Plazaola, J. Florián, R. Andrés, P. Sánchez Rovira, A. Frau

Abstract

Breast cancer is a burden for western societies, and an increasing one in emerging economies, because of its high incidence and enormous psychological, social, sanitary and economic costs. However, breast cancer is a preventable disease in a significant proportion. Recent developments in the armamentarium of effective drugs for breast cancer prevention (namely exemestane and anastrozole), the new recommendation from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to use preventative drugs in women at high risk as well as updated Guidelines from the US Preventive Services Task Force and the American Society of Clinical Oncology should give renewed momentum to the pharmacological prevention of breast cancer. In this article we review recent major developments in the field and examine their ongoing repercussion for breast cancer prevention. As a practical example, the potential impact of preventive measures in Spain is evaluated and a course of practical actions is delineated.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 3 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Researcher 2 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 11%
Other 6 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 37%
Psychology 2 11%
Unspecified 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Other 4 21%

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 15 April 2015.
All research outputs
#7,531,389
of 13,385,078 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Oncology
#289
of 681 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,572
of 297,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Oncology
#3
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,385,078 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 681 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 55% 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 297,592 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.