↓ Skip to main content

Rapid access clinic for unexplained lymphadenopathy and suspected malignancy: prospective analysis of 1000 patients

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Hematology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Rapid access clinic for unexplained lymphadenopathy and suspected malignancy: prospective analysis of 1000 patients
Published in
BMC Hematology, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12878-018-0109-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Kühnl, David Cunningham, Margaret Hutka, Clare Peckitt, Hamoun Rozati, Federica Morano, Irene Chong, Angela Gillbanks, Andrew Wotherspoon, Michelle Harris, Tracey Murray, Ian Chau

Abstract

In patients presenting with peripheral lymphadenopathy, it is critical to effectively identify those with underlying cancer who require urgent specialist care. We analyzed a large dataset of 1000 consecutive patients with unexplained lymphadenopathy referred between 2001 and 2009 to the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) rapid access lymph node diagnostic clinic (LNDC). Cancer was diagnosed in 14% of patients. Factors predictive for malignant disease were male sex, age, supraclavicular and multiple site involvement. Cancer-associated symptoms were present for a median of 8 weeks. The median time from referral to start of cancer therapy was 53 days. Fine needle aspiration (FNA) was performed in 83% of patients with malignancies. Sensitivity and specificity of FNA were limited (50 and 87%, respectively for any malignancy; 30 and 79%, respectively for lymphoma). The vast majority of cancer patients received diagnostic biopsies on the basis of suspicious clinical and ultrasound findings; the FNA result contributed to establishing the diagnosis in only 4 cases. In conclusion, we demonstrate that Oncologist-led rapid access clinics are successful concepts to assess patients with unexplained lymphadenopathy. Our data suggest that a routine use of FNA should be reconsidered in this setting.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 14%
Other 2 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 14%
Student > Master 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 3 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 50%
Psychology 1 7%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Unknown 4 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 December 2019.
All research outputs
#2,200,028
of 16,380,257 outputs
Outputs from BMC Hematology
#8
of 79 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,658
of 280,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Hematology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,380,257 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 79 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 280,807 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them