↓ Skip to main content

Lung cancer in symptomatic patients presenting in primary care: a systematic review of risk prediction tools

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • 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
22 news outlets
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Lung cancer in symptomatic patients presenting in primary care: a systematic review of risk prediction tools
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, May 2017
DOI 10.3399/bjgp17x690917
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mia Schmidt-Hansen, Sabine Berendse, Willie Hamilton, David R Baldwin

Abstract

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths. Around 70% of patients first presenting to specialist care have advanced disease, at which point current treatments have little effect on survival. The issue for primary care is how to recognise patients earlier and investigate appropriately. This requires an assessment of the risk of lung cancer. The aim of this study was to systematically review the existing risk prediction tools for patients presenting in primary care with symptoms that may indicate lung cancer DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of primary care data. Medline, PreMedline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ISI Proceedings (1980 to March 2016) were searched. The final list of included studies was agreed between two of the authors, who also appraised and summarised them. Seven studies with between 1482 and 2 406 127 patients were included. The tools were all based on UK primary care data, but differed in complexity of development, number/type of variables examined/included, and outcome time frame. There were four multivariable tools with internal validation area under the curves between 0.88 and 0.92. The tools all had a number of limitations, and none have been externally validated, or had their clinical and cost impact examined. There is insufficient evidence for the recommendation of any one of the available risk prediction tools. However, some multivariable tools showed promising discrimination. What is needed to guide clinical practice is both external validation of the existing tools and a comparative study, so that the best tools can be incorporated into clinical decision tools used in primary care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 17%
Researcher 8 14%
Other 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 16 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Computer Science 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 17 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 186. 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 29 March 2018.
All research outputs
#179,913
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#59
of 4,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,236
of 310,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#4
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 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 4,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 310,585 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 99 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.