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 |
Clinical decisions surrounding genomic and proteomic testing among United States veterans treated for lung cancer within the Veterans Health Administration
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12911-017-0475-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Olga Efimova, Brygida Berse, Daniel W. Denhalter, Scott L. DuVall, Kelly K. Filipski, Michael Icardi, Michael J. Kelley, Julie A. Lynch |
| Abstract |
Current clinical guidelines recommend epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutational testing in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to predict the benefit of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib as first-line treatment. Proteomic (VeriStrat) testing is recommended for patients with EGFR negative or unknown status when erlotinib is being considered. Departure from this clinical algorithm can increase costs and may result in worse outcomes. We examined EGFR and proteomic testing among patients with NSCLC within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). We explored adherence to guidelines and the impact of test results on treatment decisions and cost of care. Proteomic and EGFR test results from 2013 to 2015 were merged with VA electronic health records and pharmacy data. Chart reviews were conducted. Cases were categorized based on the appropriateness of testing and treatment. Of the 69 patients with NSCLC who underwent proteomic testing, 33 (48%) were EGFR-negative and 36 (52%) did not have documented EGFR status. We analyzed 138 clinical decisions surrounding EGFR/proteomic testing and erlotinib treatment. Most decisions (105, or 76%) were concordant with clinical practice guidelines. However, for 24 (17%) decisions documentation of testing or justification of treatment was inadequate, and 9 (7%) decisions represented clear departures from guidelines. EGFR testing, the least expensive clinical intervention analyzed in this study, was significantly underutilized or undocumented. The records of more than half of the patients lacked information on EGFR status. Our analysis illustrated several clinical scenarios where the timing of proteomic testing and erlotinib diverged from the recommended algorithm, resulting in excessive costs of care with no documented improvements in health outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Professor | 5 | 13% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 23% |
| Unknown | 15 | 38% |
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 16 February 2018.
All research outputs
#14,939,304
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,239
of 2,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,242
of 316,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#30
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 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 2,001 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 316,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.