| Title |
Palliative chemotherapy: oxymoron or misunderstanding?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Palliative Care, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12904-016-0109-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
EJ Roeland, TW LeBlanc |
| Abstract |
Oncologists routinely prescribe chemotherapy for patients with advanced cancer. This practice is sometimes misunderstood by palliative care clinicians, yet data clearly show that chemotherapy can be a powerful palliative intervention when applied appropriately. Clarity regarding the term "palliative chemotherapy" is needed: it is chemotherapy given in the non-curative setting to optimize symptom control, improve quality of life, and sometimes to improve survival. Unfortunately, oncologists lack adequate tools to predict which patients will benefit. In a study recently published in BMC Palliative Care, Creutzfeldt et al. presented an innovative approach to advancing the science in this area: using patient reported outcomes to predict responses to palliative chemotherapy. With further research, investigators may be able to develop predictive models for use at the bedside to inform clinical decision-making about the risks and benefits of treatment. In the meantime, oncologists and palliative care clinicians must work together to reduce the use of "end-of-life chemotherapy"-chemotherapy given close to death, which does not improve longevity or symptom control-while optimizing the use of chemotherapy that has true palliative benefits for patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 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 States | 15 | 28% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 9% |
| Canada | 2 | 4% |
| Australia | 2 | 4% |
| France | 2 | 4% |
| Spain | 2 | 4% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 19 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 32 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 26% |
| Scientists | 7 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pakistan | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 79 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 34 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 36 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 10 June 2020.
All research outputs
#1,243,885
of 25,211,948 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#76
of 1,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,890
of 306,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#1
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,211,948 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,469 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. 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 306,165 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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.