↓ Skip to main content

Do colorectal cancer patients diagnosed as an emergency differ from non-emergency patients in their consultation patterns and symptoms? A longitudinal data-linkage study in England

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Cancer, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#37 of 7,847)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
Title
Do colorectal cancer patients diagnosed as an emergency differ from non-emergency patients in their consultation patterns and symptoms? A longitudinal data-linkage study in England
Published in
British Journal of Cancer, August 2016
DOI 10.1038/bjc.2016.250
Pubmed ID
Authors

C Renzi, G Lyratzopoulos, T Card, T P C Chu, U Macleod, B Rachet

Abstract

More than 20% of colorectal cancers are diagnosed following an emergency presentation. We aimed to examine pre-diagnostic primary-care consultations and related symptoms comparing patients diagnosed as emergencies with those diagnosed through non-emergency routes. Cohort study of colorectal cancers diagnosed in England 2005 and 2006 using cancer registration data individually linked to primary-care data (CPRD/GPRD), allowing a detailed analysis of clinical information referring to the 5-year pre-diagnostic period. Emergency diagnosis occurred in 35% and 15% of the 1029 colon and 577 rectal cancers. 'Background' primary-care consultations (2-5 years before diagnosis) were similar for either group. In the year before diagnosis, >95% of emergency and non-emergency presenters had consulted their doctor, but emergency presenters had less frequently relevant symptoms (colon cancer: 48% vs 71% (P<0.001); rectal cancer: 49% vs 61% (P=0.043)). 'Alarm' symptoms were recorded less frequently in emergency presenters (e.g., rectal bleeding: 9 vs 24% (P=0.002)). However, about 1/5 of emergency presenters (18 and 23% for colon and rectal cancers) had 'alarm' symptoms the year before diagnosis. Emergency presenters have similar 'background' consultation history as non-emergency presenters. Their tumours seem associated with less typical symptoms, however opportunities for earlier diagnosis might be present in a fifth of them.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication 18 August 2016; doi:10.1038/bjc.2016.250 www.bjcancer.com.

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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 73 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Other 9 12%
Unspecified 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 20 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 57%
Unspecified 14 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 9 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 129. 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 26 November 2016.
All research outputs
#97,260
of 12,346,729 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Cancer
#37
of 7,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,633
of 266,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Cancer
#4
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,346,729 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,847 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. 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 266,505 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 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 95% of its contemporaries.