| Title |
An electronic application for rapidly calculating Charlson comorbidity score
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cancer, December 2004
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2407-4-94 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
William H Hall, Ramanathan Ramachandran, Samir Narayan, Ashesh B Jani, Srinivasan Vijayakumar |
| Abstract |
Uncertainty regarding comorbid illness, and ability to tolerate aggressive therapy has led to minimal enrollment of elderly cancer patients into clinical trials and often substandard treatment. Increasingly, comorbid illness scales have proven useful in identifying subgroups of elderly patients who are more likely to tolerate and benefit from aggressive therapy. Unfortunately, the use of such scales has yet to be widely integrated into either clinical practice or clinical trials research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 349 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 9 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 1% |
| Brazil | 3 | <1% |
| Spain | 3 | <1% |
| Norway | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 7 | 2% |
| Unknown | 316 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 84 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 43 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 41 | 12% |
| Other | 35 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 27 | 8% |
| Other | 71 | 20% |
| Unknown | 48 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 205 | 59% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 9 | 3% |
| Psychology | 8 | 2% |
| Other | 38 | 11% |
| Unknown | 65 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 02 January 2019.
All research outputs
#3,196,139
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#651
of 9,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,094
of 152,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 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 9,083 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 152,745 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them