↓ Skip to main content

Patient perspectives of a diagnosis of myeloproliferative neoplasm in a case control study

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Hematology & Oncology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Patient perspectives of a diagnosis of myeloproliferative neoplasm in a case control study
Published in
Experimental Hematology & Oncology, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40164-016-0043-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary Frances McMullin, Glen James, Andrew S. Duncombe, Frank de Vocht, Lin Fritschi, Mike Clarke, Lesley A. Anderson

Abstract

Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) including the classic entities; polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET) and primary myelofibrosis are rare diseases with unknown aetiology. The MOSAICC study, is an exploratory case-control study in which information was collected through telephone questionnaires and medical records. As part of the study, 106 patients with MPN were asked about their perceived diagnosis and replies correlated with their haematologist's diagnosis. For the first time, a patient perspective on their MPN diagnosis and classification was obtained. Logistic regression analyses were utilised to evaluate the role of variables in whether or not a patient reported their diagnosis during interview with co-adjustment for these variables. Chi square tests were used to investigate the association between MPN subtype and patient reported categorisation of MPN. Overall, 77.4 % of patients reported a diagnosis of MPN. Of those, 39.6 % recognised MPN as a 'blood condition', 23.6 % recognised MPN as a 'cancer' and 13.2 % acknowledged MPN as an 'other medical condition'. There was minimal overlap between the categories. Patients with PV were more likely than those with ET to report their disease as a 'blood condition'. ET patients were significantly more likely than PV patients not to report their condition at all. Patients from a single centre were more likely to report their diagnosis as MPN while age, educational status, and WHO re-classification had no effect. The discrepancy between concepts of MPN in patients could result from differing patient interest in their condition, varying information conveyed by treating hematologists, concealment due to denial or financial concerns. Explanations for the differences in patient perception of the nature of their disease, requires further, larger scale investigation.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 24%
Other 3 14%
Student > Master 3 14%
Researcher 2 10%
Professor 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 4 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 38%
Psychology 4 19%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 4 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 May 2016.
All research outputs
#14,264,928
of 22,875,477 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Hematology & Oncology
#107
of 293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,348
of 337,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Hematology & Oncology
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,875,477 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 293 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 337,040 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.