↓ Skip to main content

Connect MDS/AML: design of the myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukemia disease registry, a prospective observational cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, August 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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Connect MDS/AML: design of the myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukemia disease registry, a prospective observational cohort study
Published in
BMC Cancer, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12885-016-2710-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

David P. Steensma, Medrdad Abedi, Rafael Bejar, Christopher R. Cogle, Kathryn Foucar, Guillermo Garcia-Manero, Tracy I. George, David Grinblatt, Rami Komrokji, Xiaomei Ma, Jaroslaw Maciejewski, Daniel A. Pollyea, Michael R. Savona, Bart Scott, Mikkael A. Sekeres, Michael A. Thompson, Arlene S. Swern, Melissa Nifenecker, Mary M. Sugrue, Harry Erba

Abstract

Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are myeloid neoplasms in which outgrowth of neoplastic clones disrupts normal hematopoiesis. Some patients with unexplained persistent cytopenias may not meet minimal diagnostic criteria for MDS but an alternate diagnosis is not apparent; the term idiopathic cytopenia of undetermined significance (ICUS) has been used to describe this state. MDS and AML occur primarily in older patients who are often treated outside the clinical trial setting. Consequently, our understanding of the patterns of diagnostic evaluation, management, and outcomes of these patients is limited. Furthermore, there are few natural history studies of ICUS. To better understand how patients who have MDS, ICUS, or AML are managed in the routine clinical setting, the Connect MDS/AML Disease Registry, a multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study of patients newly diagnosed with these conditions has been initiated. The Connect MDS/AML Disease Registry will capture diagnosis, risk assessment, treatment, and outcomes data for approximately 1500 newly diagnosed patients from approximately 150 community and academic sites in the United States in 4 cohorts: (1) lower-risk MDS (International Prognostic Scoring System [IPSS] low and intermediate-1 risk), with and without del(5q); (2) higher-risk MDS (IPSS intermediate-2 and high risk); (3) ICUS; and (4) AML in patients aged ≥ 55 years (excluding acute promyelocytic leukemia). Diagnosis will be confirmed by central review. Baseline patient characteristics, diagnostic patterns, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, health economics outcomes, and patient-reported health-related quality of life will be entered into an electronic data capture system at enrollment and quarterly for 8 years. A tissue substudy to explore the relationship between karyotypes, molecular markers, and clinical outcomes will be conducted, and is optional for patients. The Connect MDS/AML Disease Registry will be the first prospective, observational, non-interventional study in the United States to collect clinical information, patient-reported outcomes, and tissue samples from patients with MDS, ICUS, or AML receiving multiple therapies. Results from this registry may provide new insights into the relationship between diagnostic practices, treatment regimens, and outcomes in patients with these diseases and identify areas for future investigation. Connect MDS/AML Disease Registry ( NCT01688011 ). Registered 14 September 2012.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 21%
Researcher 8 15%
Other 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 40%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 13 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 19 July 2021.
All research outputs
#2,428,574
of 23,310,485 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#460
of 8,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,212
of 345,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#13
of 277 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,310,485 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,441 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 345,051 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 277 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.