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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Helical tomotherapy of spinal chordomas: French Multicentric, retrospective study of a cohort of 30 cases
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Radiation Oncology, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13014-017-0768-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maxime Bobin, Christina Zacharatou, Paul Sargos, Véronique Brouste, Albert Lisbona, Marc-André Mahé, Georges Noël, Amandine Halley, Loïc Feuvret, Louis Gras, Stéphanie Hoppe, Bénédicte Henriques de Figueiredo, Guy Kantor |
| Abstract |
To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of helical tomotherapy (HT) in the management of spine chordomas when proton therapy is unavailable or non-feasible. Between 2007 and 2013, 30 patients with biopsy-proven chordomas were treated by HT in five French institutions. Information regarding local control (LC), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and metastasis-free survival (MFS) was collected. Clinical efficacy, toxicity and treatment quality were evaluated. Two-year actuarial LC, OS, PFS and MFS were 69.9%, 96.7%, 61.2% and 76.4%, respectively. HT treatments were well tolerated and no Grade 4-5 toxicities were observed. HT permitted the delivery of a mean dose of 68 Gy while respecting organ at risk (OAR) dose constraints, in particular in the spinal cord and cauda equina. This multicentric, retrospective study demonstrated the feasibility of HT in the treatment of spine chordomas, in the absence of hadron therapy. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Librarian | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 17% |
| Unknown | 7 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 39% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 6% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 06 March 2017.
All research outputs
#4,209,584
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#148
of 2,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,564
of 420,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#5
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,066 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 420,264 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.