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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The development and evaluation of an oncological palliative care deprescribing guideline: the ‘OncPal deprescribing guideline’
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-014-2322-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julian Lindsay, Michael Dooley, Jennifer Martin, Michael Fay, Alison Kearney, Mohsina Khatun, Michael Barras |
| Abstract |
Current data suggests that potentially inappropriate medicines (PIMs) are common in palliative cancer patients; however, there is a lack of criteria to assist clinicians in identifying PIMs in these patients. The aims of this study were to design and validate a deprescribing guideline for palliative cancer patients and to undertake a descriptive analysis of the identified PIMs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 13 | 54% |
| United States | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 29% |
| Scientists | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 184 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 35 | 19% |
| Researcher | 22 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 9% |
| Other | 16 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 16 | 9% |
| Other | 46 | 25% |
| Unknown | 34 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 65 | 35% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 48 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 3% |
| Unknown | 50 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 March 2020.
All research outputs
#1,539,759
of 25,401,784 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#168
of 5,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,043
of 242,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#3
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,401,784 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,063 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 242,250 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 64 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 96% of its contemporaries.