↓ Skip to main content

Clinical decision making in cancer care: a review of current and future roles of patient age

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Clinical decision making in cancer care: a review of current and future roles of patient age
Published in
BMC Cancer, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12885-018-4456-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eirik Joakim Tranvåg, Ole Frithjof Norheim, Trygve Ottersen

Abstract

Patient age is among the most controversial patient characteristics in clinical decision making. In personalized cancer medicine it is important to understand how individual characteristics do affect practice and how to appropriately incorporate such factors into decision making. Some argue that using age in decision making is unethical, and how patient age should guide cancer care is unsettled. This article provides an overview of the use of age in clinical decision making and discusses how age can be relevant in the context of personalized medicine. We conducted a scoping review, searching Pubmed for English references published between 1985 and May 2017. References concerning cancer, with patients above the age of 18 and that discussed age in relation to diagnostic or treatment decisions were included. References that were non-medical or concerning patients below the age of 18, and references that were case reports, ongoing studies or opinion pieces were excluded. Additional references were collected through snowballing and from selected reports, guidelines and articles. Three hundred and forty-seven relevant references were identified. Patient age can have many and diverse roles in clinical decision making: Contextual roles linked to access (age influences how fast patients are referred to specialized care) and incidence (association between increasing age and increasing incidence rates for cancer); patient-relevant roles linked to physiology (age-related changes in drug metabolism) and comorbidity (association between increasing age and increasing number of comorbidities); and roles related to interventions, such as treatment (older patients receive substandard care) and outcome (survival varies by age). Patient age is integrated into cancer care decision making in a range of ways that makes it difficult to claim age-neutrality. Acknowledging this and being more transparent about the use of age in decision making are likely to promote better clinical decisions, irrespective of one's normative viewpoint. This overview also provides a starting point for future discussions on the appropriate role of age in cancer care decision making, which we see as crucial for harnessing the full potential of personalized medicine.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 15 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 20 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 12 October 2019.
All research outputs
#7,873,689
of 25,205,864 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,079
of 8,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,937
of 333,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#62
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,205,864 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,899 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 333,794 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 210 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 70% of its contemporaries.