↓ Skip to main content

Perspective on the interpretation of research and translation to clinical care with therapy-associated metastatic breast cancer progression as an example

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical & Experimental Metastasis, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#21 of 778)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
Perspective on the interpretation of research and translation to clinical care with therapy-associated metastatic breast cancer progression as an example
Published in
Clinical & Experimental Metastasis, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10585-017-9872-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barbara Fingleton, Kelly Lange, Beth Caldwell, Katherine V. Bankaitis, on behalf of the Board of the Metastasis Research Society

Abstract

This commentary was written as a collaboration between the Board of the Metastasis Research Society and two patients with metastatic breast cancer. It was conceived in response to how preclinical scientific research is sometimes presented to non-scientists in a way that can cause stress and confusion. Translation of preclinical findings to the clinic requires overcoming multiple barriers. This is irrespective of whether the findings relate to exciting responses to new therapies or problematic effects of currently used therapies. It is important that these barriers are understood and acknowledged when research findings are summarized for mainstream reporting. To minimize confusion, patients should continue to rely on their oncology care team to help them interpret whether research findings presented in mainstream media have relevance for their individual care. Researchers, both bench and clinical, should work together where possible to increase options for patients with metastatic disease, which is still in desperate need of effective therapeutic approaches.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 22%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 11%
Lecturer 1 11%
Unknown 2 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 11%
Unknown 4 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 07 March 2018.
All research outputs
#2,381,634
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Clinical & Experimental Metastasis
#21
of 778 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,379
of 333,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical & Experimental Metastasis
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 778 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 333,148 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 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them