↓ Skip to main content

Is there evidence for a better health care for cancer patients after a second opinion? A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cancer Research & Clinical Oncology, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Is there evidence for a better health care for cancer patients after a second opinion? A systematic review
Published in
Journal of Cancer Research & Clinical Oncology, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00432-015-2099-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dana Ruetters, Christian Keinki, Sarah Schroth, Patrick Liebl, Jutta Huebner

Abstract

With growing complexity of diagnostics and therapy, as well as increasing involvement of patients in the decision-making process, there is more and more demand for second opinions in oncology. This literature review aims at analyzing the benefits and risks involved, as well as the tools needed to establish a structured program for second opinion within a modern healthcare system. A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE and Embase and the databases SocINDEX, ERIC and CINAHL. Thirteen articles met the inclusion criteria and offered a relevant insight into the topic of second opinions. Depending on the study, between 6.5 and 36 % of patients search for a second opinion, due to a variety of reasons. Changes in diagnosis, treatment recommendations or prognosis as a result of the second opinion occurred in 12-69 % of cases. In 43-82 % of cases, the original diagnosis or treatment was verified. Patient satisfaction was high, and the second opinion was deemed as helpful and reassuring in most cases. Yet, data on patient-relevant outcomes or on the quality of the second opinion are missing. In general, outcome data on second opinion are divergent and scarce. Yet, with patients' demand for second opinion and influence of second opinion on treatment decisions, a structured, high quality and transparent second-opinion program seems mandatory. Such a program may support patient-physician communication and improve the flow of information, as well as decision-making. Its evaluation should be independent from the provider of the second opinion.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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 %
United States 1 6%
Unknown 15 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 19%
Researcher 2 13%
Librarian 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Other 5 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 38%
Unspecified 3 19%
Psychology 2 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Other 3 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 14 July 2017.
All research outputs
#2,887,047
of 12,219,322 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Research & Clinical Oncology
#192
of 1,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,618
of 331,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Research & Clinical Oncology
#6
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,219,322 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,208 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 331,931 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.