↓ Skip to main content

Nationally representative trends and geographic variation in treatment of localized prostate cancer: the Urologic Diseases in America project

Overview of attention for article published in Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Nationally representative trends and geographic variation in treatment of localized prostate cancer: the Urologic Diseases in America project
Published in
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, February 2015
DOI 10.1038/pcan.2015.3
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Background:Several treatment options for clinically localized prostate cancer currently exist under the established guidelines. We aim to assess nationally representative trends in treatment over time and determine potential geographic variation using two large national claims registries.Methods:Men with prostate cancer insured by Medicare (1998-2006) or a private insurer (Ingenix database, 2002-2006) were identified using International Classification of Diseases-9 and Current Procedural Terminology-4 codes. Geographic variation and trends in the type of treatment utilized over time were assessed. Geographic data were mapped using the GeoCommons online mapping platform. Predictors of any treatment were determined using a hierarchical generalized linear mixed model using the logit link function.Results:The use of radical prostatectomy increased, 33-48%, in the privately insured i3 database while remaining stable at 12% in the Medicare population. There was a rapid uptake in the use of newer technologies over time in both the Medicare and i3 cohorts. The use of laparoscopic-assisted prostatectomy increased from 1% in 2002 to 41% in 2006 in i3 patients, whereas the incidence increased from 3% in 2002 to 35% in 2006 for Medicare patients. The use of neoadjuvant/adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy was lower in the i3 cohort and has decreased over time in both i3 and Medicare. Physician density had an impact on the type of primary treatment received in the New England region; however, this trend was not seen in the western or southern regions of the United States.Conclusions:Using two large national claims registries, we have demonstrated trends over time and substantial geographic variation in the type of primary treatment used for localized prostate cancer. Specifically, there has been a large increase in the use of newer technologies (that is, laparoscopic-assisted prostatectomy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy). These results elucidate the need for improved data collection on prostate cancer treatment outcomes to reduce unwarranted variation in care.Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Disease advance online publication, 10 February 2015; doi:10.1038/pcan.2015.3.

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 3 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 55 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 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 20%
Other 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 15 27%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 45%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 19 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 30 May 2020.
All research outputs
#3,297,657
of 33,779,198 outputs
Outputs from Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases
#272
of 1,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,131
of 415,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases
#9
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,779,198 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,481 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 415,421 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.