↓ Skip to main content

Analysis of patient-reported outcomes from the LUME-Lung 1 trial: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III study of second-line nintedanib in patients with advanced non-small cell…

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Cancer (1965), December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Analysis of patient-reported outcomes from the LUME-Lung 1 trial: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III study of second-line nintedanib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer
Published in
European Journal of Cancer (1965), December 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.11.015
Pubmed ID
Authors

Silvia Novello, Rolf Kaiser, Anders Mellemgaard, Jean-Yves Douillard, Sergey Orlov, Maciej Krzakowski, Joachim von Pawel, Maya Gottfried, Igor Bondarenko, Meilin Liao, José Barrueco, Birgit Gaschler-Markefski, Ingolf Griebsch, Michael Palmer, Martin Reck, LUME-Lung 1 Study Group

Abstract

The LUME-Lung 1 trial (NCT00805194; Study 1199.13) demonstrated a significant overall survival (OS) advantage for nintedanib plus docetaxel compared with placebo plus docetaxel as second-line therapy for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and adenocarcinoma histology. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for symptoms and health-related quality of life (QoL) are reported here.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 18%
Other 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 21 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Engineering 5 5%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 25 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 04 October 2016.
All research outputs
#7,388,118
of 25,460,914 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Cancer (1965)
#2,531
of 6,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,850
of 348,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Cancer (1965)
#22
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,460,914 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,879 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 348,038 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 73% 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.