| Title |
Could a revision of the current guidelines for cancer drug use improve the quality of cancer treatment?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s51404 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Theodor H Lippert, Hans-Jörg Ruoff, Manfred Volm |
| Abstract |
Clinical practice guidelines are indispensable for such a variable disease as malignant solid tumors, with the complex possibilities of drug treatment. The current guidelines may be criticized on several points, however. First, there is a lack of information on the outcome of treatment, such as the expected success and failure rates. Treating not only drug responders but also nonresponders, that is, patients with drug resistance, must result in failures. There is no mention of the possibility of excluding the drug nonresponders, identifiable by special laboratory tests and no consideration is given to the different side effects of the recommended drug regimens. Nor are there any instructions concerning tumor cases for which anticancer drug treatment is futile. In such cases, early palliative care may lead to significant improvements in both life quality and life expectancy. Not least, there is no transparency concerning the preparation of the guidelines: persons cannot be identified who could give a statement of conflicts of interest, and responsibility is assumed only by anonymous medical associations. A revision of the current guidelines could considerably improve cancer treatment. |
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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 46% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Professor | 1 | 8% |
| Researcher | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 54% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 8% |
| Engineering | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 15% |
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 31 January 2014.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#1,070
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,191
of 319,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#19
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 319,280 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.