↓ Skip to main content

FOTROCAN Delphi consensus statement regarding the prevention and treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis in areas of uncertainty and low quality of evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Oncology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
FOTROCAN Delphi consensus statement regarding the prevention and treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis in areas of uncertainty and low quality of evidence
Published in
Clinical and Translational Oncology, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12094-017-1632-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

P. Jimenez-Fonseca, A. Carmona-Bayonas, C. Calderon, J. Fontcuberta Boj, C. Font, R. Lecumberri, M. Monreal, A. J. Muñoz Martín, R. Otero, A. Rubio, P. Ruiz-Artacho, C. Suarez Fernández, E. Colome, P. Pérez Segura

Abstract

Decision-making in cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) is often founded on scant lines of evidence and weak recommendations. The aim of this work is to evaluate the percentage of agreement surrounding a series of statements about complex, clinically relevant, and highly uncertain aspects to formulate explicit action guidelines. Opinions were based on a structured questionnaire with appropriate scores and were agreed upon using a Delphi method. Questions were selected based on a list of recommendations with low evidence from the Spanish Society of Oncology Clinical Guideline for Thrombosis. The questionnaire was completed in two iterations by a multidisciplinary panel of experts in thrombosis. Of the 123 statements analyzed, the panel concurred on 22 (17%) and another 81 (65%) were agreed on by qualified majority, including important aspects of long-term and prolonged anticoagulation, major bleeding and rethrombosis management, treatment in special situations, catheter-related thrombosis and thromboprophylaxis. Among them, the panelists agreed the incidental events should be equated to symptomatic ones, long-term and extended use of full-dose low-molecular weight heparin, and concluded that the Khorana score is not sensitive enough to uphold an effective thromboprophylaxis strategy. Though the level of consensus varied depending on the scenario presented, overall, the iterative process achieved broad agreement as to the general treatment principles of cancer-associated VTE. Clinical validation of these statements in genuine practice conditions would be useful.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 52 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Master 7 13%
Other 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 15 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 42%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 19 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 08 November 2021.
All research outputs
#7,173,144
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Oncology
#329
of 1,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,864
of 326,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Oncology
#6
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,476 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 326,328 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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 73% of its contemporaries.