↓ Skip to main content

Technical guidelines for head and neck cancer IMRT on behalf of the Italian association of radiation oncology - head and neck working group

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
89 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 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
Technical guidelines for head and neck cancer IMRT on behalf of the Italian association of radiation oncology - head and neck working group
Published in
Radiation Oncology, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13014-014-0264-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Merlotti, Daniela Alterio, Riccardo Vigna-Taglianti, Alessandro Muraglia, Luciana Lastrucci, Roberto Manzo, Giuseppina Gambaro, Orietta Caspiani, Francesco Miccichè, Francesco Deodato, Stefano Pergolizzi, Pierfrancesco Franco, Renzo Corvò, Elvio G Russi, Giuseppe Sanguineti

Abstract

Performing intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) on head and neck cancer patients (HNCPs) requires robust training and experience. Thus, in 2011, the Head and Neck Cancer Working Group (HNCWG) of the Italian Association of Radiation Oncology (AIRO) organized a study group with the aim to run a literature review to outline clinical practice recommendations, to suggest technical solutions and to advise target volumes and doses selection for head and neck cancer IMRT. The main purpose was therefore to standardize the technical approach of radiation oncologists in this context. The following paper describes the results of this working group. Volumes, techniques/strategies and dosage were summarized for each head-and-neck site and subsite according to international guidelines or after reaching a consensus in case of weak literature evidence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Nepal 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 158 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 16%
Other 23 14%
Student > Postgraduate 23 14%
Student > Master 19 11%
Researcher 13 8%
Other 35 21%
Unknown 27 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 85 51%
Physics and Astronomy 12 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 38 23%
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 29 December 2014.
All research outputs
#18,387,239
of 22,775,504 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,409
of 2,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,658
of 353,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#53
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,775,504 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,052 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 353,001 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.