| Title |
Current opinion and consensus statement regarding the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of patients with essential thrombocythemia: a survey of the Spanish Group of Ph-negative Myeloproliferative Neoplasms (GEMFIN) using the Delphi method
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Hematology, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00277-016-2614-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C. Besses, J. C. Hernández-Boluda, M. Pérez Encinas, J. M. Raya, J. M. Hernández-Rivas, A. Jiménez Velasco, J. Martínez Lopez, V. Vicente, C. Burgaleta, on behalf of GEMFIN |
| Abstract |
The current consensus on the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of essential thrombocythemia (ET) is based on experts' recommendations. However, several aspects of the diagnosis of, prognosis of, and therapy for ET are still controversial. The Delphi method was employed with an expert panel of members of the Spanish Group of Ph-negative Myeloproliferative Neoplasms in order to identify the degree of agreement on the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of ET. Nine leading experts selected a total of 41 clinical hematologists with well-known expertise in ET. An electronic questionnaire was used to collect the questions rated in a four-step scale. The questions were grouped into four blocks: diagnosis, risk stratification, goals of therapy, and treatment strategy. After the first round consisting of 80 questions, a second round including 14 additional questions focused on the recommendations advocated by experts of the European LeukemiaNet in 2011 was analyzed. The median and mean values for the first and second rounds were calculated. A summary of the conclusions considered as the most representative of each block of questions is presented. The Delphi method is a powerful instrument to address the current approaches and controversies surrounding ET. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 7 | 21% |
| Researcher | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 12% |
| Professor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 6 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 52% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 6% |
| Psychology | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,340,423
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Hematology
#1,713
of 2,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,303
of 298,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Hematology
#18
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,175 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 298,731 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.