↓ Skip to main content

Involved field radiotherapy (IFRT) versus elective nodal irradiation (ENI) for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of incidence of elective nodal failure (ENF)

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Involved field radiotherapy (IFRT) versus elective nodal irradiation (ENI) for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of incidence of elective nodal failure (ENF)
Published in
Radiation Oncology, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13014-016-0698-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruijian Li, Liang Yu, Sixiang Lin, Lina Wang, Xin Dong, Lingxia Yu, Weiyi Li, Baosheng Li

Abstract

The use of involved field radiotherapy (IFRT) has generated concern about the increasing incidence of elective nodal failure (ENF) in contrast to elective nodal irradiation (ENI). This meta-analysis aimed to provide more reliable and up-to-date evidence on the incidence of ENF between IFRT and ENI. We searched three databases for eligible studies where locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients received IFRT or ENI. Outcome of interest was the incidence of ENF. The fixed-effects model was used to pool outcomes across the studies. There were 3 RCTs and 3 cohort studies included with low risk of bias. There was no significant difference in incidence of ENF between IFRT and ENI either among RCTs (RR = 1.38, 95 % CI: 0.59-3.25, p = 0.46) or among cohort studies (RR = 0.99, 95 % CI: 0.46-2.10, p = 0.97). There was also no significant difference in incidence of ENF between IFRT and ENI when RCTs and cohort studies were combined (RR = 1.15, 95 % CI: 0.65-2.01, p = 0.64). I (2) of test for heterogeneity was 0 %. This meta-analysis provides more reliable and stable evidence that there is no significant difference in incidence of ENF between IFRT and ENI.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 21%
Other 8 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 9%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 70%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Computer Science 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 7 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 September 2016.
All research outputs
#6,105,381
of 8,446,126 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#749
of 1,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,642
of 254,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#14
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,446,126 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,100 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 254,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.