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 |
Diagnostic intervals before and after implementation of cancer patient pathways – a GP survey and registry based comparison of three cohorts of cancer patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cancer, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12885-015-1317-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Henry Jensen, Marie Louise Tørring, Frede Olesen, Jens Overgaard, Morten Fenger-Grøn, Peter Vedsted |
| Abstract |
From 2008, Danish general practitioners could refer patients suspected of having cancer to standardised cancer patient pathways (CPPs). We aimed to compare the length of the diagnostic interval in 2010 with the length of the diagnostic interval before (2004/05) and during (2007/08) the implementation of CPPs in Denmark for all incident cancer patients who attended general practice prior to the cancer diagnosis. General practitioner questionnaires and register data on 12,558 patients were used to compare adjusted diagnostic interval across time by quantile regression. The median diagnostic interval was 14 (95%CI: 11;16) days shorter during and 17 (95%CI: 15;19) days shorter after the implementation of CPPs than before. The diagnostic interval was 15 (95%CI: 12;17) days shorter for patients referred to a CPP in 2010 than during the implementation, whereas patients not referred to a CPP in 2010 had a 4 (95%CI: 1;7) days longer median diagnostic interval; the pattern was similar, but larger at the 75(th) and 90(th) percentiles. The diagnostic interval was significantly lower after CPP implementation. Yet, patients not referred to a CPP in 2010 tended to have a longer diagnostic interval compared to during the implementation. CPPs may thus only seem to expedite the diagnostic process for some cancer patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 82 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 13% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 19 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 13% |
| Mathematics | 2 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 25 | 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 May 2022.
All research outputs
#4,952,236
of 24,554,073 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#1,249
of 8,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,761
of 270,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#44
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,554,073 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 270,046 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.