↓ Skip to main content

Cancer Treatment and Bone Health

Overview of attention for article published in Calcified Tissue International, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
Title
Cancer Treatment and Bone Health
Published in
Calcified Tissue International, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00223-017-0369-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine Handforth, Stella D’Oronzo, Robert Coleman, Janet Brown

Abstract

Considerable advances in oncology over recent decades have led to improved survival, while raising concerns about long-term consequences of anticancer treatments. In patients with breast or prostate malignancies, bone health is a major issue due to the high risk of bone metastases and the frequent prolonged use of hormone therapies that alter physiological bone turnover, leading to increased fracture risk. Thus, the onset of cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) should be considered by clinicians and recent guidelines should be routinely applied to these patients. In particular, baseline and periodic follow-up evaluations of bone health parameters enable the identification of patients at high risk of osteoporosis and fractures, which can be prevented by the use of bone-targeting agents (BTAs), calcium and vitamin D supplementation and modifications of lifestyle. This review will focus upon the pathophysiology of breast and prostate cancer treatment-induced bone loss and the most recent evidence about effective preventive and therapeutic strategies.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 107 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Master 13 12%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 6 6%
Other 21 20%
Unknown 37 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Sports and Recreations 5 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 41 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 August 2019.
All research outputs
#2,974,289
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Calcified Tissue International
#197
of 1,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,728
of 441,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Calcified Tissue International
#14
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,780 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 441,218 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.