↓ Skip to main content

Analysing population-based cancer survival – settling the controversies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Analysing population-based cancer survival – settling the controversies
Published in
BMC Cancer, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12885-016-2967-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maja Pohar Perme, Jacques Estève, Bernard Rachet

Abstract

The relative survival field has seen a lot of development in the last decade, resulting in many different and even opposing suggestions on how to approach the analysis. We carefully define and explain the differences between the various measures of survival (overall survival, crude mortality, net survival and relative survival ratio) and study their differences using colon and prostate cancer data extracted from the national population-based cancer registry of Slovenia as well as simulated data. The colon and prostate cancer data demonstrate clearly that when analysing population-based data, it is useful to split the overall mortality in crude probabilities of dying from cancer and from other causes. Complemented by net survival, it provides a complete picture of cancer survival in a given population. But when comparisons of different populations as defined for example by place or time are of interest, our simulated data demonstrate that net survival is the only measure to be used. The choice of the method should be done in two steps: first, one should determine the measure of interest and second, one should choose among the methods that estimate that measure consistently.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 20%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 14 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 41%
Mathematics 5 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Psychology 4 6%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 18 28%
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 12 December 2016.
All research outputs
#14,289,166
of 22,912,409 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#3,372
of 8,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,010
of 416,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#49
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,912,409 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,330 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 56% 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 416,052 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 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 51% of its contemporaries.