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 |
Socio-economic inequalities in patient, primary care, referral, diagnostic, and treatment intervals on the lung cancer care pathway: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-30 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lynne F Forrest, Sarah Sowden, Greg Rubin, Martin White, Jean Adams |
| Abstract |
Early diagnosis and treatment of cancer is thought to be important for improving survival. Longer time between the onset of cancer symptoms and receipt of treatment may help explain the poorer survival of UK cancer patients compared to that in other countries.Socio-economic inequalities in receipt of, and time to, treatment may contribute to socio-economic differences in cancer survival. Socio-economic inequalities in receipt of lung cancer treatment have been shown in a recent systematic review. However, no systematic review of the evidence for socio-economic inequalities in time to presentation (patient interval), time to first investigation (primary care interval), time to secondary care investigation (referral interval), time to diagnosis (diagnostic interval), and time to treatment (treatment interval) has been conducted.This review aims to assess the published and grey literature evidence for socio-economic inequalities in the length of time spent on the lung cancer diagnostic and treatment pathway, examining interim intervals on the pathway where inequalities might occur. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 | 7 | 64% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 4 | 36% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 36% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 27% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 73 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Researcher | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 19% |
| Unknown | 17 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 22 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 25 March 2015.
All research outputs
#4,493,552
of 22,749,166 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#905
of 1,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,806
of 224,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#11
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,749,166 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 224,273 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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 57% of its contemporaries.