↓ Skip to main content

Symptom Signatures and Diagnostic Timeliness in Cancer Patients: A Review of Current Evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Neoplasia, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#33 of 869)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Symptom Signatures and Diagnostic Timeliness in Cancer Patients: A Review of Current Evidence
Published in
Neoplasia, February 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.neo.2017.11.005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Minjoung M. Koo, William Hamilton, Fiona M. Walter, Greg P. Rubin, Georgios Lyratzopoulos

Abstract

Early diagnosis is an important aspect of contemporary cancer prevention and control strategies, as the majority of patients are diagnosed following symptomatic presentation. The nature of presenting symptoms can critically influence the length of the diagnostic intervals from symptom onset to presentation (the patient interval), and from first presentation to specialist referral (the primary care interval). Understanding which symptoms are associated with longer diagnostic intervals to help the targeting of early diagnosis initiatives is an area of emerging research. In this Review, we consider the methodological challenges in studying the presenting symptoms and intervals to diagnosis of cancer patients, and summarize current evidence on presenting symptoms associated with a range of common and rarer cancer sites. We propose a taxonomy of cancer sites considering their symptom signature and the predictive value of common presenting symptoms. Finally, we consider evidence on associations between symptomatic presentations and intervals to diagnosis before discussing implications for the design, implementation, and evaluation of public health or health system interventions to achieve the earlier detection of cancer.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 12 22%
Researcher 11 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Other 14 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 38%
Unspecified 20 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Mathematics 2 4%
Other 6 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 09 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,331,238
of 12,620,777 outputs
Outputs from Neoplasia
#33
of 869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,303
of 383,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neoplasia
#1
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,620,777 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 869 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 383,948 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 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 94% of its contemporaries.