↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of prognostic factors at the end of life for people with a hematological malignancy

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, March 2017
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 (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
A systematic review of prognostic factors at the end of life for people with a hematological malignancy
Published in
BMC Cancer, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12885-017-3207-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elise Button, Raymond Javan Chan, Shirley Chambers, Jason Butler, Patsy Yates

Abstract

Accurate prognosticating is needed when patients are nearing the end of life to ensure appropriate treatment decisions, and facilitate palliative care provision and transitioning to terminal care. People with a hematological malignancy characteristically experience a fluctuating illness trajectory leading to difficulties with prognosticating. The aim of this review was to identify current knowledge regarding 'bedside' prognostic factors in the final 3 months of life for people with a hematological malignancy associated with increased risk of mortality. A systematic review of the literature was performed across: PubMed; CINAHL; PsycINFO; and Cochrane with set inclusion criteria: 1) prognostic cohort studies; 2) published 2004-2014; 3) sample ≥ 18 years; 4) >50% sample had a hematological malignancy; 5) reported 'bedside' prognostic factors; 6) median survival of <3 months; and 7) English language. Quality appraisal was performed using the Quality In Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool. Results are reported in line with PRISMA guidelines. The search returned 4860 studies of which 28 met inclusion criteria. Twenty-four studies were rated moderate quality, three were high quality and one study was deemed to be of low quality. Most studies were set in the ICU (n = 24/28) and were retrospective (n = 25/28). Forty 'bedside' prognostic factors were identified as associated with increased risk of mortality encompassing the following broad categories: 1) demographics; 2) physiological complications or conditions; 3) disease characteristics; 4) laboratory blood values; and 5) interventions. The literature on prognosticating in the final months of life was predominantly focused on people who had experienced acute physiological deterioration and were being treated aggressively in the in-patient setting. A significant gap in the literature exists for people who are treated less aggressively or are on a palliative trajectory. Findings did not report on, or confirm the significance of, many of the key prognostic factors associated with increased risk of mortality at the end of life in the solid tumour population, demonstrating key differences in the two populations. This systematic review was not registered.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 18%
Other 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Lecturer 4 4%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 34 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 13%
Psychology 5 5%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 40 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 25 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,090,782
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#689
of 8,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,070
of 309,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#12
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,346 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 309,217 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 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 90% of its contemporaries.