| Title |
Primary prophylactic colony‐stimulating factors for the prevention of chemotherapy‐induced febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007913.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter Renner, Stefania Milazzo, Jian Ping Liu, Marcel Zwahlen, Josef Birkmann, Markus Horneber |
| Abstract |
High-dose or dose-intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy often causes myelosuppression and severe neutropenia among cancer patients. Severe neutropenia accompanied by fever, named febrile neutropenia (FN), is the most serious manifestation of neutropenia usually requiring hospitalization and intravenous antibiotics. FN and neutropenia can lead to chemotherapy treatment delays or dose reductions, which potentially compromises the effectiveness of cancer treatment and prospects for a cure. Granulocyte-macrophage (GM) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are administered during chemotherapy in order to prevent or reduce the incidence or the duration of FN and neutropenia. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 184 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 23 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 34 | 18% |
| Unknown | 67 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 56 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 21 | 11% |
| Unknown | 72 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 23 July 2016.
All research outputs
#7,993,771
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,729
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,584
of 193,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#165
of 235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 193,432 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 235 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.