↓ Skip to main content

Diagnosis and management of people with venous thromboembolism and advanced cancer: how do doctors decide? a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Diagnosis and management of people with venous thromboembolism and advanced cancer: how do doctors decide? a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-12-75
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miriam J Johnson, Laura Sheard, Anthony Maraveyas, Simon Noble, Hayley Prout, Ian Watt, Dawn Dowding

Abstract

The treatment of cancer associated thrombosis (CAT) is well established, with level 1A evidence to support the recommendation of a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) by daily injection for 3-6 months. However, registry data suggest compliance to clinical guidelines is poor. Clinicians face particular challenges in treating CAT in advanced cancer patients due to shorter life expectancy, increased bleeding risk and concerns that self injection may be too burdensome. For these reasons decision making around the diagnosis and management of CAT in people with advanced cancer, can be complex, and should focus on its likely net benefit for the patient. We explored factors that influence doctors' decision making in this situation and sought to gain an understanding of the barriers and facilitators to the application of best practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 54 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 18%
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Student > Postgraduate 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 5 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Psychology 4 7%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 8 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 June 2015.
All research outputs
#7,003,048
of 12,409,138 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#629
of 1,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,664
of 120,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#5
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,409,138 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 120,581 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.