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 |
Successes and failures: what did we learn from recent first-line treatment immunotherapy trials in non-small cell lung cancer?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-017-0819-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jordi Remon, Benjamin Besse, Jean-Charles Soria |
| Abstract |
The immune checkpoint inhibitors have significantly modified the therapeutic landscape of advanced non-small cell lung cancer in second-line and, more recently, first-line settings. Because of the superior outcome with pembrolizumab as an upfront strategy, PD-L1 status should now be considered a new reflex biomarker for guiding first-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Improved responses have also been reported with the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapy as the first-line treatment; however, this strategy has not yet been validated by phase III trial data and its interplay with PD-L1 status still requires clarification.In this manuscript we review the contradictory results of recent phase III trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors in the first-line setting, the potential reasons for discrepancies, and some of the remaining open questions related to the positioning of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the first-line setting of non-small cell lung cancer. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 8 | 18% |
| United States | 5 | 11% |
| Ireland | 3 | 7% |
| Spain | 2 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Singapore | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 22 | 49% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 26 | 58% |
| Scientists | 11 | 24% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 132 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 27 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 14% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 22 | 17% |
| Unknown | 30 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 34% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 12 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Unknown | 36 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 21 May 2018.
All research outputs
#1,314,995
of 24,988,588 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#926
of 3,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,087
of 314,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#23
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,988,588 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,910 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 314,069 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 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 66% of its contemporaries.