| Title |
Medical marijuana use in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients treated with radiotherapy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-016-3180-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David A. Elliott, Nima Nabavizadeh, Jeanna L. Romer, Yiyi Chen, John M. Holland |
| Abstract |
The purpose of the study was to better understand why patients with history of head and neck cancer (HNC) treated with radiotherapy are using medical marijuana (MM). Established HNC quality of life questionnaires and our own MM quality of life questionnaire were sent to 15 HNC patients treated at our institution who reported using MM. Patients are clinically disease free and currently using MM to manage long-term side effects after curative HNC treatment. There was a 100 % response rate. Median time from treatment was 45 months (21-136 months). Most patients smoked marijuana (12 patients), while others reported ingestion (4 patients), vaporizing (3 patients), and use of homemade concentrated oil (1 patient). Six patients reported prior recreational marijuana use before diagnosis. MM provided benefit in altered sense, weight maintenance, depression, pain, appetite, dysphagia, xerostomia, muscle spasm, and sticky saliva. HNC patients report MM use to help with long-term side effects of radiotherapy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 3 | 43% |
| Czechia | 2 | 29% |
| Belgium | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 93 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 13% |
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 21 | 23% |
| Unknown | 25 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 15% |
| Psychology | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Unknown | 30 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 18 July 2021.
All research outputs
#2,109,334
of 23,939,410 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#326
of 4,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,172
of 304,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#4
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,939,410 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 4,791 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. 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 304,163 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 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 96% of its contemporaries.