| 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 |
Henry J Henk, Connie Chen, Agnes Benedict, Jane Sullivan, April 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 19% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 6% |
| Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 19% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 31% |
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 09 July 2013.
All research outputs
#20,011,485
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#395
of 525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,948
of 206,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#15
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 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 525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 206,924 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.