↓ Skip to main content

Is the Evaluation of Quality of Life in NSCLC Trials Important? Are the Results to be Trusted?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Is the Evaluation of Quality of Life in NSCLC Trials Important? Are the Results to be Trusted?
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, July 2014
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2014.00173
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vera Hirsh

Abstract

The majority of patients with non-small cell lung cancer present at the time of diagnosis with stage IV metastatic disease and they experience 2 or more disease-related symptoms. These symptoms may have a negative impact on their health-related quality of life (HR QOL). Data has shown many of these patients prefer a therapy to improve their symptoms rather than receive a therapy which slightly prolongs their survival without improving their symptoms. The improvement of disease-related symptoms on a specific drug or regimen augments the significance of prolongation of the progression-free survival or the response rate as well as symptom worsening. The choice of the questionnaires to evaluate patients' reported outcomes and HR QOL benefits and the methods of collecting the data and their interpretations are very important. Only if the data are collected and analyzed properly will they be meaningful and can then be viewed as components that add the total value to a treatment and provide a comprehensive picture of the benefits and risks of a certain anticancer therapy.

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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 20%
Other 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Unspecified 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 6 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 33%
Unspecified 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Neuroscience 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 5 33%
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 03 July 2014.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#15,918
of 22,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,306
of 242,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#70
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,416 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 242,257 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.