↓ Skip to main content

Variability of performance status assessment between patients with hematologic malignancies and their physicians

Overview of attention for article published in Leukemia & Lymphoma, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Variability of performance status assessment between patients with hematologic malignancies and their physicians
Published in
Leukemia & Lymphoma, July 2017
DOI 10.1080/10428194.2017.1347930
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexis D. Leal, Cristine Allmer, Matthew J. Maurer, Tait D. Shanafelt, James R. Cerhan, Brian K. Link, Carrie A. Thompson

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine the incidence of inter-observer variability in Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) rating between patients with leukemia and lymphoma and their physicians. ECOG PS was assessed at diagnosis by patients and their physicians and stratified by disease subtype, gender, age, disease stage and education. Association between patient- and physician-rated PS and overall survival (OS) was stratified by subtype and prognostic risk score. Overall, 65% of patients and physicians rated PS the same. Age, disease stage and disease subtype were significant predictors of PS disagreement. PS was a significant predictor of OS irrespective of assessment by patients or physicians across all subtypes except those with Hodgkin lymphoma. These findings suggest the need for physicians to better communicate with patients when determining PS, as PS is a strong predictor of survival and is critical in treatment decisions, including determining fitness for cancer treatment.

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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 12%
Student > Master 2 12%
Other 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 3 18%
Unknown 7 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 35%
Unspecified 1 6%
Sports and Recreations 1 6%
Computer Science 1 6%
Unknown 8 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 11 May 2019.
All research outputs
#7,536,586
of 22,994,508 outputs
Outputs from Leukemia & Lymphoma
#928
of 4,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,274
of 314,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Leukemia & Lymphoma
#21
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,994,508 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,017 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 314,955 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 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 67% of its contemporaries.