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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A feasibility study examining the effect on lung cancer diagnosis of offering a chest X-ray to higher-risk patients with chest symptoms: protocol for a randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1745-6215-14-405 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher N Hurt, Kirsty Roberts, Trevor K Rogers, Gareth O Griffiths, Kerry Hood, Hayley Prout, Annmarie Nelson, Jim Fitzgibbon, Allan Barham, Emma Thomas-Jones, Rhiannon Edwards, Seow Yeo, William Hamilton, Angela Tod, Richard D Neal |
| Abstract |
In order to improve lung cancer survival in the UK, a greater proportion of resectable cancers must be diagnosed. It is likely that resectability rates would be increased by more timely diagnosis. Aside from screening, the only way of achieving this is to reduce the time to diagnosis in symptomatic cancers. Currently, lung cancers are mainly diagnosed by general practitioners (GPs) using the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines for urgent referral for chest X-ray, which recommend urgent imaging or referral for patients who have one of a number of chest symptoms for more than 3 weeks. We are proposing to expand this recommendation to include one of a number of chest symptoms of any duration in higher-risk patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 71% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 18% |
| Researcher | 9 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 16% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Professor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 14 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 14% |
| Psychology | 3 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 16 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 04 February 2016.
All research outputs
#3,306,370
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#45
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,633
of 292,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#19
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 45 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one scored the same or higher as 0 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 292,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.