| Title |
Current treatment options for the management of esophageal cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Management and Research, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cmar.s27593 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mark R Mawhinney, Robert E Glasgow |
| Abstract |
In recent years, esophageal cancer characteristics and management options have evolved significantly. There has been a sharp increase in the frequency of esophageal adenocarcinoma and a decline in the frequency of squamous cell carcinoma. A more comprehensive understanding of prognostic factors influencing outcome has also been developed. This has led to more management options for esophageal cancer at all stages than ever before. A multidisciplinary, team approach to management in a high volume center is the preferred approach. Each patient should be individually assessed based on type of cancer, local or regional involvement, and his or her own functional status to determine an appropriate treatment regimen. This review will discuss management of esophageal cancer relative to disease progression and patient functional status. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Egypt | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 17% |
| Researcher | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 7 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 9 | 20% |
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 04 November 2012.
All research outputs
#20,110,957
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Management and Research
#1,017
of 2,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,980
of 202,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Management and Research
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,067 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 202,619 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.