↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of adverse events via a telephone consultation service for cancer patients receiving ambulatory chemotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Assessment of adverse events via a telephone consultation service for cancer patients receiving ambulatory chemotherapy
Published in
BMC Research Notes, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1292-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shunsuke Kondo, Satoshi Shiba, Ryoko Udagawa, Yasuaki Ryushima, Miho Yano, Tomoko Uehara, Mihoko Asanabe, Kenji Tamura, Jun Hashimoto

Abstract

An increasing number of cancer patients are receiving ambulatory chemotherapy to improve their quality of life and reduce medical expenses. During outpatient chemotherapy, adverse events (AEs) occurring at home must be carefully monitored. We investigated the use of our institution's telephone consultation service that is available to patients and their caregivers for advice on and the management of AEs and complications arising from cancer treatment. Telephone consultants assessed and graded AEs according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). All patient characteristics, AEs, and background factors were analyzed using logistic regression analyses. Between August 2011 and August 2012, we included 253 patients and 344 telephone consultations regarding AEs during chemotherapy for analysis in this study. Grade 1 AEs were assessed in 223 consultations (65%); grade 2 AEs, in 90 consultations (26%); and grade 3 AEs, in 31 consultations (9%). A multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed an association between a change in patient schedules and the occurrence of grade 2 or worse AEs (Hazard ratio = 6.58, P < 0.001). Changes in planned chemotherapy occurred more often in cases involving male patients (Hazard ratio = 2.70, P = 0.02) and in cases of grade 2 or worse AEs (Hazard ratio = 6.58, P < 0.001). We found that AE assessment using CTCAE via a telephone consultation service is useful for both the triage of patients and the prediction of severe AEs that may change clinical schedules.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Other 4 10%
Researcher 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 16 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 17 41%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 August 2015.
All research outputs
#19,280,634
of 23,866,543 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,063
of 4,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,457
of 265,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#72
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,866,543 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 265,284 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 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.