↓ Skip to main content

Decision support systems for incurable non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 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
Decision support systems for incurable non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12911-017-0542-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

D. Révész, E. G. Engelhardt, J. J. Tamminga, F. M. N. H. Schramel, B. D. Onwuteaka-Philipsen, E. M. W. van de Garde, E. W. Steyerberg, E. P. Jansma, H. C. W. De Vet, V. M. H. Coupé

Abstract

Individually tailored cancer treatment is essential to ensure optimal treatment and resource use. Treatments for incurable metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are evolving rapidly, and decision support systems (DSS) for this patient population have been developed to balance benefits and harms for decision-making. The aim of this systematic review was to inventory DSS for stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients. A systematic literature search was performed in Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. DSS were described extensively, including their predictors, model performances (i.e., discriminative ability and calibration), levels of validation and user friendliness. The systematic search yielded 3531 articles. In total, 67 articles were included after additional reference tracking. The 39 identified DSS aim to predict overall survival and/or progression-free survival, but give no information about toxicity or cost-effectiveness. Various predictors were incorporated, such as performance status, serum and inflammatory markers, and patient and tumor characteristics. Some DSS were developed for the entire incurable NSCLC population, whereas others were specifically for patients with brain or spinal metastases. Few DSS had been validated externally using recent clinical data, and the discrimination and calibration were often poor. Many DSS have been developed for incurable NSCLC patients, but DSS are still lacking that are up-to-date with a good model performance, while covering the entire treatment spectrum. Future DSS should incorporate genetic and biological markers based on state-of-the-art evidence, and compare multiple treatment options to estimate survival, toxicity and cost-effectiveness.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Researcher 14 19%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Librarian 5 7%
Other 18 25%
Unknown 16 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 21 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 April 2018.
All research outputs
#15,481,147
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,325
of 2,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,147
of 322,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#15
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,007 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 322,939 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.