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 |
Diagnosis and management of people with venous thromboembolism and advanced cancer: how do doctors decide? a qualitative study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-12-75 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Miriam J Johnson, Laura Sheard, Anthony Maraveyas, Simon Noble, Hayley Prout, Ian Watt, Dawn Dowding |
| Abstract |
The treatment of cancer associated thrombosis (CAT) is well established, with level 1A evidence to support the recommendation of a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) by daily injection for 3-6 months. However, registry data suggest compliance to clinical guidelines is poor. Clinicians face particular challenges in treating CAT in advanced cancer patients due to shorter life expectancy, increased bleeding risk and concerns that self injection may be too burdensome. For these reasons decision making around the diagnosis and management of CAT in people with advanced cancer, can be complex, and should focus on its likely net benefit for the patient. We explored factors that influence doctors' decision making in this situation and sought to gain an understanding of the barriers and facilitators to the application of best practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 2 | 67% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 86 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Unknown | 16 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 15% |
| Psychology | 6 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 18 | 21% |
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 01 June 2015.
All research outputs
#13,868,345
of 22,671,366 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,065
of 1,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,053
of 163,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#30
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,671,366 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,978 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 163,870 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 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.