| Title |
Measures of Appropriateness and Value for Breast Surgeons and Their Patients: The American Society of Breast Surgeons Choosing Wisely ® Initiative
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Surgical Oncology, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1245/s10434-016-5327-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeffrey Landercasper, Lisa Bailey, Tiffany S. Berry, Robert R. Buras, Amy C. Degnim, Oluwadamilola M. Fayanju, Joshua Froman, Jennifer Gass, Caprice Greenberg, Starr Koslow Mautner, Helen Krontiras, Roshni Rao, Michelle Sowden, Judy A. Tjoe, Barbara Wexelman, Lee Wilke, Steven L. Chen |
| Abstract |
Current breast cancer care is based on high-level evidence from randomized, controlled trials. Despite these data, there continues to be variability of breast cancer care, including overutilization of some tests and operations. To reduce overutilization, the American Board of Internal Medicine Choosing Wisely (®) Campaign recommends that professional organizations provide patients and providers with a list of care practices that may not be necessary. Shared decision making regarding these services is encouraged. The Patient Safety and Quality Committee of the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) solicited candidate measures for the Choosing Wisely (®) Campaign. The resulting list of "appropriateness" measures of care was ranked by a modified Delphi appropriateness methodology. The highest-ranked measures were submitted to and later approved by the ASBrS Board of Directors. They are listed below. (1) Don't routinely order breast magnetic resonance imaging in new breast cancer patients. (2) Don't routinely excise all the lymph nodes beneath the arm in patients having lumpectomy for breast cancer. (3) Don't routinely order specialized tumor gene testing in all new breast cancer patients. (4) Don't routinely reoperate on patients with invasive cancer if the cancer is close to the edge of the excised lumpectomy tissue. (5) Don't routinely perform a double mastectomy in patients who have a single breast with cancer. The ASBrS list for the Choosing Wisely (®) campaign is easily accessible to breast cancer patients online. These measures provide surgeons and their patients with a starting point for shared decision making regarding potentially unnecessary testing and operations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 | 10 | 67% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 4 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 47% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 33% |
| Scientists | 2 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 54 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 17% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 13 | 24% |
| Unknown | 8 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 15 | 28% |
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 25 February 2019.
All research outputs
#3,633,231
of 25,083,571 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#1,056
of 7,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,739
of 361,157 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#30
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,083,571 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,162 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 361,157 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.