| Title |
Do-not-resuscitate orders in cancer patients: a review of literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-016-3459-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aart Osinski, Gerard Vreugdenhil, Jan de Koning, Johannes G. van der Hoeven |
| Abstract |
Discussing do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders is part of daily hospital practice in oncology departments. Several medical factors and patient characteristics are associated with issuing DNR orders in cancer patients. DNR orders are often placed late in the disease process. This may be a cause for disagreements between doctors and between doctors and patients and may cause for unnecessary treatments and admissions. In addition, DNR orders on itself may influence the rest of the medical treatment for patients. We present recommendations for discussing DNR orders and medical futility in practice through shared decision-making. Prospective studies are needed to investigate in which a patient's cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is futile and whether or not DNR orders influence the medical care of patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 25% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 72 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 15% |
| Researcher | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 19% |
| Unknown | 20 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 15% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 27 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 10 December 2017.
All research outputs
#5,563,682
of 22,899,952 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#1,269
of 4,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,664
of 315,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#31
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,899,952 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 315,621 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.