↓ Skip to main content

Management of radiation oncology patients with a pacemaker or ICD: A new comprehensive practical guideline in The Netherlands

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
148 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
213 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
Management of radiation oncology patients with a pacemaker or ICD: A new comprehensive practical guideline in The Netherlands
Published in
Radiation Oncology, November 2012
DOI 10.1186/1748-717x-7-198
Pubmed ID
Authors

Coen W Hurkmans, Joost L Knegjens, Bing S Oei, Ad JJ Maas, GJ Uiterwaal, Arnoud J van der Borden, Marleen MJ Ploegmakers, Lieselot van Erven

Abstract

Current clinical guidelines for the management of radiotherapy patients having either a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (both CIEDs: Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices) do not cover modern radiotherapy techniques and do not take the patient's perspective into account. Available data on the frequency and cause of CIED failure during radiation therapy are limited and do not converge. The Dutch Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology (NVRO) initiated a multidisciplinary task group consisting of clinical physicists, cardiologists, radiation oncologists, pacemaker and ICD technologists to develop evidence based consensus guidelines for the management of CIED patients. CIED patients receiving radiotherapy should be categorised based on the chance of device failure and the clinical consequences in case of failure. Although there is no clear cut-off point nor a clear linear relationship, in general, chances of device failure increase with increasing doses. Clinical consequences of device failures like loss of pacing, carry the most risks in pacing dependent patients. Cumulative dose and pacing dependency have been combined to categorise patients into low, medium and high risk groups. Patients receiving a dose of less than 2 Gy to their CIED are categorised as low risk, unless pacing dependent since then they are medium risk. Between 2 and 10 Gy, all patients are categorised as medium risk, while above 10 Gy every patient is categorised as high risk. Measures to secure patient safety are described for each category. This guideline for the management of CIED patients receiving radiotherapy takes into account modern radiotherapy techniques, CIED technology, the patients' perspective and the practical aspects necessary for the safe management of these patients. The guideline is implemented in The Netherlands in 2012 and is expected to find clinical acceptance outside The Netherlands as well.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users 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 213 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 3 1%
United States 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 207 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 37 17%
Other 31 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 17 8%
Student > Bachelor 17 8%
Other 48 23%
Unknown 39 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 100 47%
Physics and Astronomy 34 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 6%
Unspecified 4 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 1%
Other 8 4%
Unknown 51 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 10 September 2022.
All research outputs
#5,597,999
of 23,305,591 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#208
of 2,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,134
of 279,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#5
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,305,591 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,092 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 279,472 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.