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 |
Safety of indwelling pleural catheter use in patients undergoing chemotherapy: a five-year retrospective evaluation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12890-016-0203-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Charleen Chan Wah Hak, Parthipan Sivakumar, Liju Ahmed |
| Abstract |
Indwelling pleural catheters (IPC) are increasingly becoming a first-line treatment in the management of malignant pleural effusions. Ambulatory management using IPC are increasingly used in this patient group whilst they are receiving concurrent chemotherapy. There are currently no prospective trials examining IPC safety in chemotherapy. This study's objective is to determine if IPC insertion is safe in patients undergoing chemotherapy. We conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent IPC insertion for malignant pleural effusion at our trust from September 2010 to December 2014. Data was collected on IPC insertion and removal, tumour type, systemic chemotherapy, pleural infection and other complications. One hundred four patients were identified, 43 in chemotherapy group and 61 in non-chemotherapy group. The incidence of pleural infection in chemotherapy group vs non-chemotherapy group, 4 (9.3 %) vs 3 (4.9 %) respectively, was not statistically different (Fisher's exact p = 0.311). There was no significant difference in six-month infection-free duration from the date of IPC insertion (log rank p = 0.394). Overall six-month mortality in chemotherapy group was significantly lower than in non-chemotherapy group (log rank p = 0.007). This is the second largest retrospective case-control series that concludes systemic chemotherapy is safe in patients with IPC undergoing chemotherapy. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 71% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 43% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 15% |
| Researcher | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 6 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 59% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 24 June 2018.
All research outputs
#6,353,372
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#459
of 1,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,727
of 299,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#8
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,921 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 299,556 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.