↓ Skip to main content

Diagnosis of cancer as an emergency: a critical review of current evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, October 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 (#49 of 1,771)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
twitter
48 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 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
Diagnosis of cancer as an emergency: a critical review of current evidence
Published in
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, October 2016
DOI 10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.155
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yin Zhou, Gary A. Abel, Willie Hamilton, Kathy Pritchard-Jones, Cary P. Gross, Fiona M. Walter, Cristina Renzi, Sam Johnson, Sean McPhail, Lucy Elliss-Brookes, Georgios Lyratzopoulos

Abstract

Many patients with cancer are diagnosed through an emergency presentation, which is associated with inferior clinical and patient-reported outcomes compared with those of patients who are diagnosed electively or through screening. Reducing the proportion of patients with cancer who are diagnosed as emergencies is, therefore, desirable; however, the optimal means of achieving this aim are uncertain owing to the involvement of different tumour, patient and health-care factors, often in combination. Most relevant evidence relates to patients with colorectal or lung cancer in a few economically developed countries, and defines emergency presentations contextually (that is, whether patients presented to emergency health-care services and/or received emergency treatment shortly before their diagnosis) as opposed to clinically (whether patients presented with life-threatening manifestations of their cancer). Consistent inequalities in the risk of emergency presentations by patient characteristics and cancer type have been described, but limited evidence is available on whether, and how, such presentations can be prevented. Evidence on patients' symptoms and health-care use before presentation as an emergency is sparse. In this Review, we describe the extent, causes and implications of a diagnosis of cancer following an emergency presentation, and provide recommendations for public health and health-care interventions, and research efforts aimed at addressing this under-researched aspect of cancer diagnosis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 125 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 18%
Researcher 22 17%
Other 15 12%
Student > Master 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Other 29 23%
Unknown 15 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 25 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 85. 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 27 January 2018.
All research outputs
#250,399
of 15,624,646 outputs
Outputs from Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology
#49
of 1,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,135
of 270,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology
#2
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,624,646 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 1,771 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 270,991 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 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 96% of its contemporaries.