| Title |
Haematological cancers: improving outcomes. A summary of updated NICE service guidance in relation to Specialist Integrated Haematological Malignancy Diagnostic Services (SIHMDS)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Pathology, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1136/jclinpath-2016-204029 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John A Snowden, Susan O'Connell, James Hawkins, Chris Dalley, Andrew Jack, Deepak Mannari, Chris McNamara, Mike Scott, Geoff Shenton, Elizabeth Soilleux, Fergus Macbeth |
| Abstract |
Haematological malignancies are a diverse group of cancers that affect the blood, bone marrow and lymphatic systems. Laboratory diagnosis of haematological malignancies is dependent on combining several technologies, including morphology, immunophenotyping, cytogenetics and molecular genetics correlated clinical details and classification according to the current WHO guidelines. The concept of the Specialised Integrated Haematological Malignancy Diagnostic Services (SIHMDS) has evolved since the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Improving Outcomes Guidance (IOG) in 2003 and subsequently various models of delivery have been established. As part of the 2016 update to the NICE IOG, these models were systematically evaluated and recommendations produced to form the basis for quality standards for future development of SIHMDS. We provide a summary of the systematic review and recommendations. Although the recommendations pertain to the UK National Health Service (NHS), they have relevance to the modern delivery of diagnostic services internationally. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 17% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 23 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 22% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 17% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 24 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 15 June 2017.
All research outputs
#13,546,553
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Pathology
#2,629
of 3,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,256
of 309,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Pathology
#16
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,943 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 309,929 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.