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 |
Benefits of local tumor excision and pharyngectomy on the survival of nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients: a retrospective observational study based on SEER database
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12967-017-1204-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jian Sun, Zhongying Huang, Zheyu Hu, Rui Sun |
| Abstract |
There is ongoing debate about surgery of primary site in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. 3919 patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma identified in the SEER registry between 2004 and 2013. The benefit of surgery of primary nasopharynx tumor site on overall and cancer-specific survival was assessed by risk-adjusted multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression and propensity score matching modeling. Surgery was marginally associated with better overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.816, 95% CI 0.656-1.015, p = 0.07) and cancer-specific survival (HR = 0.749, 95% CI 0.552-1.018, p = 0.06) in the propensity score model. Among 398 cases who underwent primary site surgery, 282 (70.85%) received local tumor excision and 79 (20.31%) received pharyngectomy. Local tumor excision and pharyngectomy had almost the same effect on survival in propensity score matching analysis. The benefit was significant in subgroups of white, age <60 year, and patients with T3, N1, M0, AJCC stage III, or moderately differentiated tumors. Further survival analysis showed surgery to promote survival in both radiotherapy and non-radiotherapy patients. This is the first population-based analysis using propensity score model to provide evidence of a positive impact of surgery on survival in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Moreover, surgery demonstrated the significant benefit in subgroups of patients with specific clinical characteristics. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 21% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 50% |
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 30 May 2017.
All research outputs
#15,462,982
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#2,251
of 4,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,644
of 316,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#48
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,015 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. 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 316,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.