↓ Skip to main content

Early detection of multiple myeloma in primary care using blood tests: a case–control study in primary care

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#3 of 2,406)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
80 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
42 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions
Title
Early detection of multiple myeloma in primary care using blood tests: a case–control study in primary care
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, August 2018
DOI 10.3399/bjgp18x698357
Pubmed ID
Authors

Constantinos Koshiaris, Ann Van den Bruel, Jason L Oke, Brian D Nicholson, Elizabeth Shephard, Mick Braddick, William Hamilton

Abstract

Multiple myeloma is a haematological cancer characterised by numerous non-specific symptoms leading to diagnostic delay in a large proportion of patients. To identify which blood tests are useful in suggesting or excluding a diagnosis of myeloma. A matched case-control study set in UK primary care using routinely collected data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Symptom prevalence and blood tests were analysed up to 5 years before diagnosis in 2703 cases and 12 157 matched controls. Likelihood ratios (LR) were used to classify tests or their combinations as useful rule-in tests (LR+ = ≥5), or rule-out tests (LR- = ≤0.2). Raised plasma viscosity (PV) had an LR+ = 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7 to 2.3; erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) 1.9, 95% CI = 1.7 to 2.0; and C-reactive protein (CRP) 1.2, 95% CI = 1.1 to 1.4. A normal haemoglobin had an LR- = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.45; calcium LR- = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.78 to 0.83; and creatinine LR- = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.77 to 0.83. The test combination with the lowest LR- was all normal haemoglobin with calcium and PV, which had an LR- = 0.06, 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.18, though the LR- for normal haemoglobin and PV together was 0.12 (95% CI = 0.07 to 0.23). Plasma viscosity and ESR are better for both ruling in and ruling out the disease compared with C-reactive protein. A combination of a normal ESR or PV and normal haemoglobin is a simple rule-out approach for patients currently being tested in primary care.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 681. 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 20 September 2018.
All research outputs
#6,590
of 11,797,702 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#3
of 2,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#312
of 216,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#1
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,797,702 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,406 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 216,531 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 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 98% of its contemporaries.