↓ Skip to main content

Regional differences in recommended cancer treatment for the elderly

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2016
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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.
Title
Regional differences in recommended cancer treatment for the elderly
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1534-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vivian Ho, Meei-Hsiang Ku-Goto, Hui Zhao, Karen E. Hoffman, Benjamin D. Smith, Sharon H. Giordano

Abstract

Little is known about regional variation in cancer treatment and its determinants. We compare rates of adherence to treatment guidelines for elderly patients across Texas and whether local specialist supply is an important determinant of treatment variation. Previous literature reviewed indicated 7 recommended courses of treatment for colorectal, pancreatic, and prostate cancer. We analyzed Texas Cancer Registry data linked with Medicare claims for the years 2004 to 2007 to study patients with these cancers. We tested for unadjusted and adjusted differences in treatment rates across 22 hospital referral regions (HRR). We tested whether variation in the local supply of specialists treating each cancer was an important determinant of treatment. We found significant differences in adjusted treatment rates across regions. For removal and examination of 12+ lymph nodes with colon cancer resection, 13 of 22 HRRs had rates significantly different from the median region. For adjuvant chemotherapy for regional colon cancer, five HRRs significantly differed from the median. For prostate cancer treatment with a favorable diagnosis, nine HRRs differed from the median HRR. Of the 7 treatments, only the local availability of surgeons was an important determinant for excision of lymph nodes for colon cancer patients. There are significant variations across Texas for seven recommended cancer treatments. No one region has consistently higher or lower treatments than other regions, and local specialist supply is not an important predictor of treatment. Different factors may be determining regional variation in treatment rates across cancer types and treatment options.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 23%
Student > Master 5 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Professor 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 9%
Mathematics 1 5%
Linguistics 1 5%
Other 6 27%
Unknown 3 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 25 July 2016.
All research outputs
#1,470,176
of 23,305,591 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#487
of 7,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,993
of 357,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#13
of 184 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,305,591 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,801 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 357,703 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 184 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 93% of its contemporaries.