↓ Skip to main content

Intensive care of the cancer patient: recent achievements and remaining challenges

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
249 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 Mendeley
Title
Intensive care of the cancer patient: recent achievements and remaining challenges
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, March 2011
DOI 10.1186/2110-5820-1-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elie Azoulay, Marcio Soares, Michael Darmon, Dominique Benoit, Stephen Pastores, Bekele Afessa

Abstract

A few decades have passed since intensive care unit (ICU) beds have been available for critically ill patients with cancer. Although the initial reports showed dismal prognosis, recent data suggest that an increased number of patients with solid and hematological malignancies benefit from intensive care support, with dramatically decreased mortality rates. Advances in the management of the underlying malignancies and support of organ dysfunctions have led to survival gains in patients with life-threatening complications from the malignancy itself, as well as infectious and toxic adverse effects related to the oncological treatments. In this review, we will appraise the prognostic factors and discuss the overall perspective related to the management of critically ill patients with cancer. The prognostic significance of certain factors has changed over time. For example, neutropenia or autologous bone marrow transplantation (BMT) have less adverse prognostic implications than two decades ago. Similarly, because hematologists and oncologists select patients for ICU admission based on the characteristics of the malignancy, the underlying malignancy rarely influences short-term survival after ICU admission. Since the recent data do not clearly support the benefit of ICU support to unselected critically ill allogeneic BMT recipients, more outcome research is needed in this subgroup. Because of the overall increased survival that has been reported in critically ill patients with cancer, we outline an easy-to-use and evidence-based ICU admission triage criteria that may help avoid depriving life support to patients with cancer who can benefit. Lastly, we propose a research agenda to address unanswered questions.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 2%
France 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 175 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 16%
Student > Postgraduate 23 13%
Student > Master 19 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 10%
Other 15 8%
Other 39 22%
Unknown 38 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 104 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Engineering 4 2%
Mathematics 3 2%
Other 8 4%
Unknown 46 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 August 2017.
All research outputs
#14,732,278
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#775
of 1,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,557
of 108,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,033 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 108,420 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.