↓ Skip to main content

Do colorectal cancer patients diagnosed as an emergency differ from non-emergency patients in their consultation patterns and symptoms? A longitudinal data-linkage study in England

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Cancer, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
15 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 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
Do colorectal cancer patients diagnosed as an emergency differ from non-emergency patients in their consultation patterns and symptoms? A longitudinal data-linkage study in England
Published in
British Journal of Cancer, August 2016
DOI 10.1038/bjc.2016.250
Pubmed ID
Authors

C Renzi, G Lyratzopoulos, T Card, T P C Chu, U Macleod, B Rachet

Abstract

More than 20% of colorectal cancers are diagnosed following an emergency presentation. We aimed to examine pre-diagnostic primary-care consultations and related symptoms comparing patients diagnosed as emergencies with those diagnosed through non-emergency routes. Cohort study of colorectal cancers diagnosed in England 2005 and 2006 using cancer registration data individually linked to primary-care data (CPRD/GPRD), allowing a detailed analysis of clinical information referring to the 5-year pre-diagnostic period. Emergency diagnosis occurred in 35% and 15% of the 1029 colon and 577 rectal cancers. 'Background' primary-care consultations (2-5 years before diagnosis) were similar for either group. In the year before diagnosis, >95% of emergency and non-emergency presenters had consulted their doctor, but emergency presenters had less frequently relevant symptoms (colon cancer: 48% vs 71% (P<0.001); rectal cancer: 49% vs 61% (P=0.043)). 'Alarm' symptoms were recorded less frequently in emergency presenters (e.g., rectal bleeding: 9 vs 24% (P=0.002)). However, about 1/5 of emergency presenters (18 and 23% for colon and rectal cancers) had 'alarm' symptoms the year before diagnosis. Emergency presenters have similar 'background' consultation history as non-emergency presenters. Their tumours seem associated with less typical symptoms, however opportunities for earlier diagnosis might be present in a fifth of them.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication 18 August 2016; doi:10.1038/bjc.2016.250 www.bjcancer.com.

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 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 129 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 13%
Other 16 12%
Student > Master 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 26 20%
Unknown 21 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 32 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 132. 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 03 March 2020.
All research outputs
#264,724
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Cancer
#68
of 10,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,888
of 343,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Cancer
#4
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,439 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 343,111 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 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 95% of its contemporaries.