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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 22% |
| Other | 8 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 69% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| 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
#17,817,005
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,279
of 2,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,800
of 320,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#15
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,060 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 320,659 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 58% of its contemporaries.