| Title |
A critical appraisal of the clinical utility of proton therapy in oncology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/mder.s65594 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dongxu Wang |
| Abstract |
Proton therapy is an emerging technology for providing radiation therapy to cancer patients. The depth dose distribution of a proton beam makes it a preferable radiation modality as it reduces radiation to the healthy tissue outside the tumor, compared with conventional photon therapy. While theoretically beneficial, its clinical values are still being demonstrated from the increasing number of patients treated with proton therapy, from several dozen proton therapy centers around the world. High equipment and facility costs are often the major obstacle for its wider adoption. Because of the high cost and lack of definite clinical evidence of its superiority, proton therapy treatment faces criticism on its cost-effectiveness. Technological development is causing a gradual lowering of costs, and research and clinical studies are providing further evidence on its clinical utility. |
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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 85 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 16% |
| Researcher | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 20 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 26% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 17 | 20% |
| Engineering | 5 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 15% |
| Unknown | 22 | 26% |
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 29 October 2015.
All research outputs
#20,823,121
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#231
of 303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,517
of 287,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#11
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 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 303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 287,342 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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.