↓ Skip to main content

Using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Improved Decision-Making in Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer – the Last Clinical Frontier in Surgical Oncology?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Improved Decision-Making in Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer – the Last Clinical Frontier in Surgical Oncology?
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2013.00157
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kjetil Søreide, Annbjørg H. Søreide

Abstract

The genomic era has introduced concepts of "personalized medicine" and "targeted therapy" in the field of oncology. Medicine has become increasingly complex with a plethora of potential dilemmas in diagnosis, treatment, and management. The focus on classical outcomes for clinical decision-making is now increasingly being replaced by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PROMs should increasingly now be in the center of patient-centered decision-making, based on valid, reliable, and clinically useful measures delivered directly by the patient to the caregiver. Surgeons' ability to interpret and apply PROMs and quality of life results must improve by education and further research, and has an unreleased potential to contribute to a better understanding of the patients' well-being. A number of caveats must be addressed before this can be brought to fruition; standardization for valid items; appropriate use of instruments; correct timing of the application; missing data handling, compliance, and respondent drop-outs are but a few issues to be addressed. Based on the apparent lack of use in both research and clinical work, it should call for an educational effort to address this among surgeons caring for patients with cancer.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 24%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 14 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 15 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 09 November 2018.
All research outputs
#3,820,712
of 25,932,719 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#1,275
of 22,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,876
of 291,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#19
of 327 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,932,719 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,839 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 291,797 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 327 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 93% of its contemporaries.