↓ Skip to main content

Exploration of the treatment challenges in men with intellectual difficulties and testicular cancer as seen in Down syndrome: single centre experience

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Exploration of the treatment challenges in men with intellectual difficulties and testicular cancer as seen in Down syndrome: single centre experience
Published in
BMC Medicine, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0386-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shaista Hafeez, Mausam Singhera, Robert Huddart

Abstract

Down syndrome is the most common chromosomal disorder in humans as well as the most common cause of inherited intellectual disability. A spectrum of physical and functional disability is associated with the syndrome as well as a predisposition to developing particular malignancies, including testicular cancers. These tumours ordinarily have a high cure rate even in widely disseminated disease. However, individuals with Down syndrome may have learning difficulties, behavioural problems, and multiple systemic complications that have the potential to make standard treatment more risky and necessitates individualized approach in order to avoid unacceptable harm. There is also suggestion that tumours may have a different natural history. Further, people with learning disabilities have often experienced poorer healthcare than the general population. In order to address these inequalities, legislation, professional bodies, and charities provide guidance; however, ultimately, consideration of the person in the context of their own psychosocial issues, comorbidities, and possible treatment strategies is vital in delivering optimal care. We aim to present a review of our own experience of delivering individualized care to this group of patients in order to close the existing health inequality gap.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Student > Master 5 16%
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 19%
Psychology 5 16%
Social Sciences 4 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 8 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 31 July 2015.
All research outputs
#699,296
of 5,428,000 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#765
of 1,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,208
of 189,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#44
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,428,000 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,362 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 189,363 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.