↓ Skip to main content

The multiple myeloma treatment landscape: international guideline recommendations and clinical practice in Europe

Overview of attention for article published in Expert Review of Hematology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
The multiple myeloma treatment landscape: international guideline recommendations and clinical practice in Europe
Published in
Expert Review of Hematology, February 2018
DOI 10.1080/17474086.2018.1437345
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michele Cavo, Evangelos Terpos, Joan Bargay, Hermann Einsele, Jim Cavet, Richard Greil, Edwin de Wit

Abstract

Guidelines provide recommendations on the management of multiple myeloma (MM), but there are no standard algorithms for the choice and sequencing of treatments. As a result, there is widespread variation in the interpretation and implementation of these guidelines. Areas covered: This review will cover: the real-world data on MM treatment patterns; the approved agents available for the treatment of MM; a comparative summary of the national and international clinical guidelines; a discussion on the impact reimbursement decisions have on treatment availability. Expert commentary: In the future, treatment choices may become even more complex as clonal heterogeneity is better understood in the context of response to treatment, and next-generation agents become available. Although information on real-world practice patterns can provide further guidance, to date, few studies have generated data on patients treated with the newer agents in real-world settings. Furthermore, the translation of guideline recommendations into clinical practice across Europe is inconsistent. Additional real-world data are therefore vital to understanding current clinical practice patterns, so that new agents can be effectively incorporated into existing treatment strategies. Such information may aid the development of better guidance, which will ultimately help to ensure that patients receive the best possible care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 17%
Other 6 11%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 17 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 32%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 18 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 May 2018.
All research outputs
#6,204,388
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Expert Review of Hematology
#107
of 705 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,919
of 336,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Expert Review of Hematology
#4
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 705 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 336,897 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.