↓ Skip to main content

Non-invasive interventions for improving well-being and quality of life in patients with lung cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2011
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 (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
287 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
Non-invasive interventions for improving well-being and quality of life in patients with lung cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004282.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

José-Ramón Rueda, Ivan Solà, Antonio Pascual, Mireia Subirana Casacuberta

Abstract

This is an updated version of the original review published in Issue 4, 2004 of The Cochrane Library. Lung cancer is one of the leading causes of death globally. Despite advances in treatment, the outlook for the majority of patients remains grim and most face a pessimistic future accompanied by sometimes devastating effects on emotional and psychological health. Although chemotherapy is accepted as an effective treatment for advanced lung cancer, the high prevalence of treatment-related side effects as well the symptoms of disease progression highlight the need for high-quality palliative and supportive care to minimise symptom distress and to promote quality of life.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 287 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 277 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 54 19%
Researcher 52 18%
Student > Bachelor 33 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 8%
Other 58 20%
Unknown 37 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 101 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 51 18%
Psychology 39 14%
Social Sciences 15 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 25 9%
Unknown 50 17%

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 03 October 2019.
All research outputs
#3,135,604
of 14,083,335 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,699
of 10,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,317
of 76,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#22
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,083,335 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,839 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 76,259 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.