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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Reporting of prognostic markers: current problems and development of guidelines for evidence-based practice in the future
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of Cancer, April 2003
|
| DOI | 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600886 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
R D Riley, K R Abrams, A J Sutton, P C Lambert, D R Jones, D Heney, S A Burchill |
| Abstract |
Prognostic markers help to stratify patients for treatment by identifying patients with different risks of outcome (e.g. recurrence of disease), and are important tools in the management of cancer and many other diseases. Systematic review and meta-analytical approaches to identifying the most valuable prognostic markers are needed because (sometimes conflicting) evidence relating to markers is often published across a number of studies. To investigate the practicality of this approach, an empirical investigation of a systematic review of tumour markers for neuroblastoma was performed; 260 studies of prognostic markers were identified, which considered 130 different markers. The reporting of these studies was often inadequate, in terms of both statistical analysis and presentation, and there was considerable heterogeneity for many important clinical/statistical factors. These problems restricted both the extraction of data and the meta-analysis of results from the primary studies, limiting feasibility of the evidence-based approach.Guidelines for reporting the results of primary prognostic marker studies in cancer, and other diseases, are given in order to facilitate both the interpretation of individual studies and the undertaking of systematic reviews, meta-analysis and, ultimately, evidence-based practice. General availability of full individual patient data is a necessary step forward and would overcome the majority of problems encountered, including poorly reported summary statistics and variability in cutoff level, outcome assessed and adjustment factors used. It would also limit the problem of reporting bias, although publication bias will remain a concern until studies are prospectively registered. Such changes in practice would help important evidence-based reviews to be conducted in order to establish the most appropriate prognostic markers for clinical use, which should ultimately improve patient care. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Argentina | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 74 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 26% |
| Unknown | 15 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 40% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 8% |
| Mathematics | 5 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 13% |
| Unknown | 19 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 05 November 2012.
All research outputs
#3,217,780
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Cancer
#1,897
of 11,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,947
of 64,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Cancer
#8
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 64,608 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.