↓ Skip to main content

Improving early diagnosis of symptomatic cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, 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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
Title
Improving early diagnosis of symptomatic cancer
Published in
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, July 2016
DOI 10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.109
Pubmed ID
Authors

Willie Hamilton, Fiona M. Walter, Greg Rubin, Richard D. Neal

Abstract

Much time, effort and investment goes into the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer, with the expectation that this approach brings clinical benefits. This investment of resources has been particularly noticeable in the UK, which has, for several years, appeared near the bottom of international league tables for cancer survival in economically developed countries. In this Review, we examine expedited diagnosis of cancer from four perspectives. The first relates to the potential for clinical benefits of expedited diagnosis of symptomatic cancer. Limited evidence from clinical trials is available, but the considerable observational evidence suggests benefits can be obtained from this approach. The second perspective considers how expedited diagnosis can be achieved. We concentrate on data from the UK, where extensive awareness campaigns have been conducted, and initiatives in the primary-care setting, including clinical decision support, have all occurred during a period of considerable national policy change. The third section considers the most appropriate patients for cancer investigations, and the possible community settings for identification of such patients; UK national guidance for selection of patients for investigation is discussed. Finally, the health economics of expedited diagnosis are reviewed, although few studies provide definitive evidence on this topic.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Unknown 85 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 24%
Researcher 16 18%
Student > Master 11 13%
Other 10 11%
Unspecified 9 10%
Other 20 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 36%
Unspecified 21 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Other 12 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 07 November 2017.
All research outputs
#662,633
of 12,109,122 outputs
Outputs from Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology
#180
of 1,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,974
of 266,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology
#10
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,109,122 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,476 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 266,466 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 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.