↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Non‐invasive interventions for improving well‐being and quality of life in patients with lung cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
111 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
516 Mendeley
Title
Non‐invasive interventions for improving well‐being and quality of life in patients with lung cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004282.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

José‐Ramón Rueda, Ivan Solà, Antonio Pascual, Mireia Subirana Casacuberta

Abstract

This is an updated version of the original review published in Issue 4, 2004 of The Cochrane Library. Lung cancer is one of the leading causes of death globally. Despite advances in treatment, the outlook for the majority of patients remains grim and most face a pessimistic future accompanied by sometimes devastating effects on emotional and psychological health. Although chemotherapy is accepted as an effective treatment for advanced lung cancer, the high prevalence of treatment-related side effects as well the symptoms of disease progression highlight the need for high-quality palliative and supportive care to minimise symptom distress and to promote quality of life.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 516 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 506 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 70 14%
Researcher 69 13%
Student > Bachelor 61 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 59 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 31 6%
Other 91 18%
Unknown 135 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 134 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 89 17%
Psychology 55 11%
Social Sciences 21 4%
Sports and Recreations 13 3%
Other 50 10%
Unknown 154 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 September 2023.
All research outputs
#2,389,062
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,850
of 11,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,730
of 136,357 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#25
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
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 136,357 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.