The bottleneck effect in lung cancer clinical trials
Journal of Cancer Education, ISSN: 0885-8195, Vol: 28, Issue: 3, Page: 488-493
2013
- 5Citations
- 37Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations5
- Citation Indexes5
- CrossRef1
- Captures37
- Readers37
- 37
Article Description
Clinical trials provide the most promising way to improve treatment outcomes in cancer. This study examined the rate at which eligible patients with lung cancer, at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center in the South, were offered a clinical trial and explored for reasons for ineligibility. We retrospectively reviewed 300 randomly selected lung cancer patients' medical records seen in 2010, to assess clinical trial offers to eligible patients, reasons for not offering an eligible patient a trial, demographic factors associated with eligibility, and reasons for refusal among those offered a trial. Of the 300 patient charts, seven were excluded for lack of confirmed lung cancer diagnosis. Forty-six of the remaining 293 (15.7 %) patients were eligible for a clinical trial. Forty-five of the 46 (97.8 %) were considered for a trial by their oncologist. Thirty-five of the 45 (77.8 %) were offered a trial: 15 agreed (42.9 % of those offered, 5.1 % of patients reviewed), 11 declined, and 9 were undecided at the end of the review window. Patients with poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status levels and small cell (SC) diagnoses were significantly less likely to be eligible for a trial. Results suggest that oncologists at the cancer center are effectively presenting all eligible patients with the option of a clinical trial; however, there is a need to increase the number of approved clinical trials for patients with SC or ECOG score greater than 2. © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84893639160&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13187-013-0491-z; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23733149; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13187-013-0491-z; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13187-013-0491-z; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13187-013-0491-z
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know