↓ Skip to main content

Screening for distress in patients with primary brain tumor using distress thermometer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Screening for distress in patients with primary brain tumor using distress thermometer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Cancer, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12885-018-3990-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fangkun Liu, Jing Huang, Liyang Zhang, Fan, Jindong Chen, Kun Xia, Zhixiong Liu

Abstract

Patients with primary brain tumors are reported to have an elevated level of distress prevalence, due to the functional sequelae and the unfavorable prognosis, but the estimated prevalence of this disorder varies among studies. The Distress Thermometer (DT) is widely used distress screening tools to identify patients suffering from elevated psychosocial distress. The objective of this meta-analysis is to get a summarized estimate of distress prevalence in adult primary brain tumor patients screened by the DT instrument to identify distress in brain tumor patients. We searched studies published in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Cochrane library through August 2017 and checked related reviews and meta-analyses for eligible studies. Studies were eligible if they were published in the peer-reviewed literature and evaluated distress level by Distress Thermometer. The prevalence of distress symptoms in patients with the intracranial tumor was estimated by study-level characteristics using stratified meta-analysis. The prevalence of distress level or symptoms during the follow-up examination at different time points was detected by secondary analysis of the longitudinal studies included. Twelve studies including a total of 2145 brain tumor patients were included in this analysis. Eight used a cross-sectional design and four were longitudinal. The pooled prevalence of distress was 38.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 28.7%-47.7%) for the overall sample. The pooled prevalence of distress DT ≥4 was 41.1% (642/1686, 95% CI 28.6%-53.5%) and the pooled prevalence of distress by DT ≥6 was 29.7% (137/459, 95% CI 19.5%-39.9%). The distress symptom did not decrease in follow-up studies (Relative Increase Ratio:1.02, 95% CI, (0.78, 1.35)). A huge heterogeneity in different studies was detected, and different screening scales were not compared. The high prevalence of distress becomes an enormous challenge for primary brain tumor patients. Routine screening and evaluation of distress in brain tumor patients may assist medical workers to develop proper interventions, which may lead to better quality of life and oncology management.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 20%
Student > Master 7 20%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 26%
Psychology 5 14%
Neuroscience 3 9%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 10 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#3,949,635
of 13,305,217 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#1,095
of 4,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,196
of 270,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,305,217 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,981 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 270,991 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 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