| Title |
Methodological challenges in the evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, November 1998
|
| DOI | 10.1023/a:1006193704132 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Douglas G. Altman, Gary H. Lyman |
| Abstract |
Many studies are carried out in an effort to find factors that help explain the large unexplained variation in prognosis of breast cancer patients. The principles of good study design and analysis are less well appreciated for prognostic factor studies than for therapeutic trials. The oncology literature is full of results from studies of varying quality, often with conflicting findings. As a consequence, despite the large number of studies, there is still uncertainty about the importance of most prognostic factors. Few recently proposed prognostic factors for breast cancer have become widely accepted. This paper reviews the important methodological issues underlying such research. These issues are illustrated with examples from published studies and recent reviews of papers published in cancer journals. Guidelines are proposed for conducting and evaluating prognostic factor studies which should improve the quality of research in this important area. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 30% |
| Sweden | 1 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 5 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 30% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 54 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 21% |
| Researcher | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 19% |
| Unknown | 12 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 47% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 19 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 06 June 2021.
All research outputs
#1,918,279
of 23,373,475 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#263
of 4,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,002
of 35,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#1
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,373,475 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,719 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 35,342 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.