| Title |
Recommendations for the follow-up care of female breast cancer survivors: a guideline of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM), Spanish Society of General Medicine (SEMERGEN), Spanish Society for Family and Community Medicine (SEMFYC), Spanish Society for General and Family Physicians (SEMG), Spanish Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (SEGO), Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR), Spanish Society of Senology and Breast Pathology (SESPM), and Spanish Society of Cardiology (SEC)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical and Translational Oncology, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12094-017-1801-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. Barnadas, M. Algara, O. Cordoba, A. Casas, M. Gonzalez, M. Marzo, A. Montero, M. Muñoz, A. Ruiz, F. Santolaya, T. Fernandez |
| Abstract |
The increased incidence and decreased mortality of breast cancer have produced an increased number of breast cancer survivors. The type of sequelae and comorbidities that these patients present call for a collaborative follow-up by hospital-based specialized care and primary care. In this document, we present a guideline drafted and agreed among scientific societies whose members care for breast cancer survivors. The purpose of this guideline is to achieve the shared and coordinated follow-up of these patients by specialized care and primary care professionals. In it, we review the health issues derived from the treatments performed, with recommendations about the therapeutic approach to each of them, as well as a proposal for joint follow-up by primary and specialized care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 | 68% |
| Unknown | 6 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 84% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 11% |
| Scientists | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 71 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 21% |
| Unknown | 19 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 42% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 24 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 30 June 2019.
All research outputs
#2,866,142
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Oncology
#94
of 1,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,989
of 337,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Oncology
#4
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,476 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 337,094 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.