↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Retrospective claims analysis of best supportive care costs and survival in a US metastatic renal cell population

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Retrospective claims analysis of best supportive care costs and survival in a US metastatic renal cell population
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, July 2013
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s45756
Pubmed ID
Authors

Connie Chen, Henry Henk, Benedict, Jane Sullivan, Teitelbaum

Abstract

Survival and best supportive care (BSC) costs for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), after stopping therapy, are poorly characterized yet an important aspect of patient care. This study examined survival and costs associated with BSC after one or two lines of therapy (LOTs) for mRCC.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 27%
Other 2 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 18%
Professor 1 9%
Researcher 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 3 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 9%
Decision Sciences 1 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 November 2013.
All research outputs
#2,118,002
of 4,505,915 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#95
of 156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,184
of 89,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#11
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,505,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 156 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 89,123 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.