↓ Skip to main content

Breast Conservation Therapy Versus Mastectomy: Shared Decision-Making Strategies and Overcoming Decisional Conflicts in Your Patients

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgical 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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Breast Conservation Therapy Versus Mastectomy: Shared Decision-Making Strategies and Overcoming Decisional Conflicts in Your Patients
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology, July 2016
DOI 10.1245/s10434-016-5369-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie A. Margenthaler, David W. Ollila

Abstract

Although breast-conserving therapy is considered the preferred treatment for the majority of women with early-stage breast cancer, mastectomy rates in this group remain high. The patient, physician, and systems factors contributing to a decision for mastectomy are complicated. Understanding the individual patient's values and goals when making this decision is paramount to providing a shared decision-making process that will yield the desired outcome. The cornerstones of this discussion include education of the patient, access to decision-aid tools, and time to make an informed decision. However, it is also paramount for the physician to understand that a significant majority of women with an informed and complete understanding of their surgical choices will still prefer mastectomy. The rates of breast conservation versus mastectomy should not be considered a quality measure alone. Rather, the extent by which patients are informed, involved in decision-making, and undergoing treatments that reflect their goals is the true test of quality. Here we explore some of the factors that impact the patient preference for breast conservation versus mastectomy and how shared decision-making can be maximized for patient satisfaction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Postgraduate 6 12%
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 44%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 13 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 09 October 2016.
All research outputs
#1,204,329
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#161
of 6,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,000
of 365,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#10
of 179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,489 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 365,596 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 179 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.