↓ Skip to main content

Improvement of hospital care for patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial (PEARL study)

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Improvement of hospital care for patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial (PEARL study)
Published in
Implementation Science, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-8-77
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jozette JC Stienen, Rosella PMG Hermens, Lianne Wennekes, Saskia AM van de Schans, Helena M Dekker, Nicole MA Blijlevens, Richard WM van der Maazen, Eddy MM Adang, Johan HJM van Krieken, Petronella B Ottevanger

Abstract

Malignant lymphomas constitute a diverse group of cancers of lymphocytes. One well-known disease is Hodgkin's lymphoma; the others are classified as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). NHLs are the most common hematologic neoplasms in adults worldwide, and in 2012 over 170,000 new cases were estimated in the United States and Europe.In previous studies, several practice gaps in hospital care for patients with NHL have been identified. To decrease this variation in care, the present study aims to perform a problem analysis in which barriers to and facilitators for optimal NHL care will be identified and, based on these findings, to develop (tailored) improvement strategies. Subsequently, we will assess the effectiveness, feasibility and costs of the improvement strategies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 18 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 24 42%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 18 September 2013.
All research outputs
#6,210,015
of 22,713,403 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,079
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,339
of 194,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#18
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,713,403 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 194,246 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.