↓ Skip to main content

UK clinical practice guidelines for the management of gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST)

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Sarcoma Research, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
Title
UK clinical practice guidelines for the management of gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST)
Published in
Clinical Sarcoma Research, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13569-017-0072-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ian Judson, Ramesh Bulusu, Beatrice Seddon, Adam Dangoor, Newton Wong, Satvinder Mudan

Abstract

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are rare tumours arising in mesenchymal tissues. Gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) is the commonest STS and arises within the wall of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. While most GISTs occur in the stomach they do occur in all parts of the GI tract. As with other STS, it is important that GISTs are managed by expert teams, to ensure consistent and optimal treatment, as well as recruitment to clinical trials, and the ongoing accumulation of further knowledge of the disease. The development of appropriate guidance, by an experienced panel referring to the evidence available, is therefore a useful foundation on which to build progress in the field. British Sarcoma Group guidelines for the management of GIST were initially developed by a panel of physicians experienced in the management of GIST. This current version has been updated and amended with reference to other European and US guidance. We have received input from representatives of all diagnostic and treatment disciplines as well as patient representatives. Levels of evidence and strength of recommendation gradings are those used by ESMO adapted from those published by the Infectious Disease Society of America. The guidelines cover aetiology, genetics and underlying molecular mechanisms, diagnosis and initial investigations, staging and risk stratification, surgery, neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy, the management of advanced disease and follow-up. The importance of mutational analysis in guiding treatment is highlighted, since this can indicate the most effective treatment and avoid administration of ineffective drugs, emphasising the need for management in specialist centres.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 103 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Student > Postgraduate 13 13%
Student > Master 12 12%
Other 10 10%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 25 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 47%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 27 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 May 2017.
All research outputs
#18,546,002
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Sarcoma Research
#77
of 104 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,414
of 309,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Sarcoma Research
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 104 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 309,918 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.