↓ Skip to main content

Prognostic assessment for patients with cancer and incidental pulmonary embolism

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Prognostic assessment for patients with cancer and incidental pulmonary embolism
Published in
Thrombosis Journal, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12959-017-0157-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

George Bozas, Natalie Jeffery, Deiva Ramanujam-Venkatachala, Ged Avery, Andrew Stephens, Hilary Moss, June Palmer, Mandi Elliott, Anthony Maraveyas

Abstract

An incidental/unsuspected diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (IPE) in cancer patients is a frequent occurrence. This single-institution analysis of uniformly managed patients investigates short and long-term outcomes and proposes a prognostic risk score, aiming to assist clinical decision-making. Data from a prospectively recorded cohort of 234 consecutive cancer patients with IPE were analysed. Multivariate logistic regression and the Cox regression survival methods were used to identify factors with independent association with early (30-day, 3-month, 6-month) mortality and survival. Receiver operator characteristic analysis (ROC) was used to assess appropriate cut-offs for continuous variables and the fitness of prognostic scoring. 30-day, 3-month and 6-month mortality was 3.4% (n = 8), 15% (n = 35) and 31% (n = 72) respectively. Recurrence during anticoagulation occurred in 2.6% (n = 6) and major haemorrhage in 2.1% (n = 5) of the patients. A prognostic score incorporating performance status (0 vs 1-2 vs 3-4) and the presence of new or worsening symptoms, with and without the consideration of the presence of incurable malignancy, correlated with overall survival (p < .001 respectively) as well as early mortality (AUC = .821,p = .004 and AUC = .805,p = 0.006, respectively). A simple prognostic score incorporating basic oncologic clinical assessment and self-reported symptomatology could reliably stratify the mortality risk of ambulant cancer patients and IPE. Audit registration No. 2013.287, Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals Trust, 29/11/2013.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 21%
Student > Master 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 3 16%
Other 2 11%
Librarian 2 11%
Other 4 21%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 42%
Engineering 3 16%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Chemistry 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 4 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 February 2018.
All research outputs
#9,986,902
of 12,476,917 outputs
Outputs from Thrombosis Journal
#124
of 161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#246,334
of 339,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Thrombosis Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,476,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 339,986 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them