↓ Skip to main content

Personalizing, not patronizing: the case for patient autonomy by unbiased presentation of management options in stage I testicular cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Oncology, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
Personalizing, not patronizing: the case for patient autonomy by unbiased presentation of management options in stage I testicular cancer
Published in
Annals of Oncology, November 2014
DOI 10.1093/annonc/mdu514
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Oldenburg, J. Aparicio, J. Beyer, G. Cohn-Cedermark, M. Cullen, T. Gilligan, U. De Giorgi, M. De Santis, R. de Wit, S.D. Fosså, J.R. Germà-Lluch, S. Gillessen, H.S. Haugnes, F. Honecker, A. Horwich, A. Lorch, D. Ondruš, G. Rosti, A.J. Stephenson, T. Tandstad

Abstract

Testicular cancer (TC) is the most common neoplasm in males aged 15 to 40 years. The majority of patients have no evidence of metastases at diagnosis and thus have clinical stage I (CSI) disease.(1, 2) Management of CSI TC is controversial and options include surveillance and active treatment. Different forms of adjuvant therapy exist, including either one or two cycles of carboplatin chemotherapy or radiotherapy for seminoma and either one or two cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy or retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) for non-seminoma. Long-term disease-specific survival is about 99% with any of these approaches, including surveillance. While surveillance allows most patients to avoid additional treatment, adjuvant therapy markedly lowers the relapse rate. Weighing the net benefits of surveillance against those of adjuvant treatment depends upon prioritizing competing aims such as avoiding unnecessary treatment, avoiding more burdensome treatment with salvage chemotherapy and minimizing the anxiety, stress and life-disruption associated with relapse. Unbiased information about the advantages and disadvantages of surveillance and adjuvant treatment is a prerequisite for informed consent by the patient. In a clinical scenario like CSI TC where different disease-management options produce indistinguishable long-term survival rates, patient values, priorities and preferences should be taken into account. In this review, we provide an overview about risk factors for relapse, potential benefits and harms of adjuvant chemotherapy and active surveillance and a rationale for involving patients in individualized decision making about their treatment rather than adopting a uniform recommendation for all.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 98 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 18%
Researcher 17 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Other 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 21 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 29%
Psychology 6 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 23 23%
Unknown 29 29%
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 31 October 2016.
All research outputs
#14,599,900
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Oncology
#5,564
of 7,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,485
of 276,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Oncology
#55
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,854 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 276,316 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.