↓ Skip to main content

An overview of current practice in external beam radiation oncology with consideration to potential benefits and challenges for nanotechnology

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Nanotechnology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
An overview of current practice in external beam radiation oncology with consideration to potential benefits and challenges for nanotechnology
Published in
Cancer Nanotechnology, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12645-017-0027-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raymond B. King, Stephen J. McMahon, Wendy B. Hyland, Suneil Jain, Karl T. Butterworth, Kevin M. Prise, Alan R. Hounsell, Conor K. McGarry

Abstract

Over the past two decades, there has been a significant evolution in the technologies and techniques employed within the radiation oncology environment. Over the same period, extensive research into the use of nanotechnology in medicine has highlighted a range of potential benefits to its incorporation into clinical radiation oncology. This short communication describes key tools and techniques that have recently been introduced into specific stages of a patient's radiotherapy pathway, including diagnosis, external beam treatment and subsequent follow-up. At each pathway stage, consideration is given towards how nanotechnology may be combined with clinical developments to further enhance their benefit, with some potential opportunities for future research also highlighted. Prospective challenges that may influence the introduction of nanotechnology into clinical radiotherapy are also discussed, indicating the need for close collaboration between academic and clinical staff to realise the full clinical benefit of this exciting technology.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Student > Master 10 14%
Researcher 7 10%
Other 5 7%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 14 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 13 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 17 24%
Unknown 16 22%

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 08 February 2017.
All research outputs
#4,928,706
of 9,728,255 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Nanotechnology
#30
of 42 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,448
of 316,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Nanotechnology
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,728,255 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 42 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one scored the same or higher as 12 of them.
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 316,558 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.