↓ 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
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#13 of 1,907)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
22 news outlets
twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
2 Mendeley
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 2 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 2 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 1 50%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 2 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 185. 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 14 July 2017.
All research outputs
#37,166
of 8,208,212 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#13
of 1,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,622
of 231,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#3
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,208,212 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 1,907 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 231,549 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 82 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.