↓ Skip to main content

Benefit in liver transplantation: a survey among medical staff, patients, medical students and non-medical university staff and students

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Benefit in liver transplantation: a survey among medical staff, patients, medical students and non-medical university staff and students
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12910-018-0248-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine Englschalk, Daniela Eser, Ralf J. Jox, Alexander Gerbes, Lorenz Frey, Derek A. Dubay, Martin Angele, Manfred Stangl, Bruno Meiser, Jens Werner, Markus Guba

Abstract

The allocation of any scarce health care resource, especially a lifesaving resource, can create profound ethical and legal challenges. Liver transplant allocation currently is based upon urgency, a sickest-first approach, and does not utilize capacity to benefit. While urgency can be described reasonably well with the MELD system, benefit encompasses multiple dimensions of patients' well-being. Currently, the balance between both principles is ill-defined. This survey with 502 participants examines how urgency and benefit are weighted by different stakeholders (medical staff, patients on the liver transplant list or already transplanted, medical students and non-medical university staff and students). Liver transplant patients favored the sickest-first allocation, although all other groups tended to favor benefit. Criteria of a successful transplantation were a minimum survival of at least 1 year and recovery of functional status to being ambulatory and capable of all self-care (ECOG 2). An individual delisting decision was accepted when the 1-year survival probability would fall below 50%. Benefit was found to be a critical variable that may also trigger the willingness to donate organs. The strong interest of stakeholder for successful liver transplants is inadequately translated into current allocation rules.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 20%
Researcher 5 17%
Librarian 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Psychology 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 15 50%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 13 February 2018.
All research outputs
#2,845,730
of 12,504,607 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#243
of 533 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,352
of 345,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,504,607 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 533 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 345,234 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 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