↓ Skip to main content

Proton Beam Therapy – the Challenges of Delivering High-quality Evidence of Clinical Benefit

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Oncology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#42 of 2,512)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
51 X users

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Proton Beam Therapy – the Challenges of Delivering High-quality Evidence of Clinical Benefit
Published in
Clinical Oncology, March 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.clon.2018.02.031
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cancer Research Institute Clinical and Translational Radiotherapy Research Working Group Proton Beam Clinical Trial Strategy Group, R. Amos, H. Bulbeck, N.G. Burnet, A. Crellin, D. Eaton, P. Evans, E. Hall, M.A. Hawkins, K.J. Kirkby, R. Mackay, D. Sebag-Montefiore, R. Sharma

Abstract

The use of proton beam therapy (PBT) offers the opportunity to improve greater conformality of radiotherapy treatment delivery in some patients. However, it is associated with a high capital cost and the need to build new dedicated facilities. We discuss how the global radiotherapy community can respond to the challenge of producing high-quality evidence of clinical benefit from PBT in adult patients. In the UK, the National Cancer Research Institute-funded Clinical and Radiotherapy Translational group has established the PBT Clinical Trial Strategy Group. An eight-point framework is described that can assist the development and delivery of high-quality clinical trials.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 21%
Other 8 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Professor 3 6%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 42%
Physics and Astronomy 5 10%
Computer Science 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 13 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,546,265
of 32,900,686 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Oncology
#42
of 2,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,748
of 370,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Oncology
#1
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,900,686 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 2,512 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 370,469 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 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 98% of its contemporaries.