| Title |
iwCLL guidelines for diagnosis, indications for treatment, response assessment, and supportive management of CLL
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Blood, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1182/blood-2017-09-806398 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael Hallek, Bruce D Cheson, Daniel Catovsky, Federico Caligaris-Cappio, Guillermo Dighiero, Hartmut Döhner, Peter Hillmen, Michael Keating, Emili Montserrat, Nicholas Chiorazzi, Stephan Stilgenbauer, Kanti R Rai, John C Byrd, Barbara Eichhorst, Susan O'Brien, Tadeusz Robak, John F Seymour, Thomas J Kipps |
| Abstract |
In 2008, International Workshop on CLL (iwCLL) published consensus guidelines for the design and conduct of clinical trials for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) that were revised from those previously published by the National Cancer Institute-sponsored Working Group. These guidelines provided definitions intended to standardize the assessment of patients that were adopted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the evaluation of new drugs. Since the publication of these guidelines there have been major advances in the biology and treatment of patients with CLL, prompting the iwCLL to evaluate and revise the 2008 criteria. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 89 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 12 | 13% |
| United States | 10 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 7 | 8% |
| Mexico | 5 | 6% |
| Brazil | 4 | 4% |
| Saudi Arabia | 3 | 3% |
| Canada | 3 | 3% |
| Australia | 3 | 3% |
| Colombia | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 33 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 61 | 69% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 16% |
| Scientists | 11 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,064 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1064 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 122 | 11% |
| Other | 93 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 90 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 87 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 87 | 8% |
| Other | 188 | 18% |
| Unknown | 397 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 332 | 31% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 127 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 44 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 35 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 26 | 2% |
| Other | 88 | 8% |
| Unknown | 412 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 133. 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 13 February 2024.
All research outputs
#317,489
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Blood
#152
of 33,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,273
of 355,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Blood
#4
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,954 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 355,841 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 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.