↓ Skip to main content

Improving early diagnosis of symptomatic cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, July 2016
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
15 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
104 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
175 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
Improving early diagnosis of symptomatic cancer
Published in
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, July 2016
DOI 10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.109
Pubmed ID
Authors

Willie Hamilton, Fiona M. Walter, Greg Rubin, Richard D. Neal

Abstract

Much time, effort and investment goes into the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer, with the expectation that this approach brings clinical benefits. This investment of resources has been particularly noticeable in the UK, which has, for several years, appeared near the bottom of international league tables for cancer survival in economically developed countries. In this Review, we examine expedited diagnosis of cancer from four perspectives. The first relates to the potential for clinical benefits of expedited diagnosis of symptomatic cancer. Limited evidence from clinical trials is available, but the considerable observational evidence suggests benefits can be obtained from this approach. The second perspective considers how expedited diagnosis can be achieved. We concentrate on data from the UK, where extensive awareness campaigns have been conducted, and initiatives in the primary-care setting, including clinical decision support, have all occurred during a period of considerable national policy change. The third section considers the most appropriate patients for cancer investigations, and the possible community settings for identification of such patients; UK national guidance for selection of patients for investigation is discussed. Finally, the health economics of expedited diagnosis are reviewed, although few studies provide definitive evidence on this topic.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Unknown 173 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 14%
Student > Master 18 10%
Other 13 7%
Student > Bachelor 10 6%
Other 32 18%
Unknown 47 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 6%
Computer Science 6 3%
Psychology 6 3%
Other 27 15%
Unknown 58 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 07 November 2017.
All research outputs
#1,633,167
of 23,124,001 outputs
Outputs from Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology
#415
of 2,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,522
of 366,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology
#8
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,124,001 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,071 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 366,446 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.