↓ Skip to main content

Continuous controversy about radiation oncologists’ choice of treatment regimens for bone metastases: should we blame doctors, cancer-related features, or design of previous clinical studies?

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Continuous controversy about radiation oncologists’ choice of treatment regimens for bone metastases: should we blame doctors, cancer-related features, or design of previous clinical studies?
Published in
Radiation Oncology, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/1748-717x-8-85
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carsten Nieder, Adam Pawinski, Astrid Dalhaug

Abstract

Recent studies from Italy, Japan and Norway have confirmed previous reports, which found that a large variety of palliative radiotherapy regimens are used for painful bone metastases. Routine use of single fraction treatment might or might not be the preferred institutional approach. It is not entirely clear why inter-physician and inter-institution differences continue to persist despite numerous randomized trials, meta-analyses and guidelines, which recommend against more costly and inconvenient multi-fraction regimens delivering total doses of 30 Gy or more in a large number of clinical scenarios. In the present mini-review we discuss the questions of whether doctors are ignoring evidence-based medicine or whether we need additional studies targeting specifically those patient populations where recent surveys identified inconsistent treatment recommendations, e.g. because of challenging disease extent. We identify open questions and provide research suggestions, which might contribute to making radiation oncology practitioners more confident in selecting the right treatment for the right patient.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 3%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 32 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 20%
Researcher 7 20%
Other 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Other 8 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 57%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Unspecified 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Other 5 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 May 2013.
All research outputs
#6,107,754
of 11,851,781 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#261
of 1,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,751
of 134,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#12
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,851,781 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,243 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 134,233 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.