↓ Skip to main content

Evidence mapping based on systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Evidence mapping based on systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST)
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0402-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mónica Ballesteros, Nadia Montero, Antonio López-Pousa, Gerard Urrútia, Ivan Solà, Gabriel Rada, Hector Pardo-Hernandez, Xavier Bonfill

Abstract

Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumours. Currently, different pharmacological and surgical options are used to treat localised and metastatic GISTs, although this research field is broad and the body of evidence is scattered and expanding. Our objectives are to identify, describe and organise the current available evidence for GIST through an evidence mapping approach. We followed the methodology of Global Evidence Mapping (GEM). We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos in order to identify systematic reviews (SRs) with or without meta-analyses published between 1990 and March 2016. Two authors assessed eligibility and extracted data. Methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR. We organised the results according to identified PICO questions and presented the evidence map in tables and a bubble plot. A total of 17 SRs met eligibility criteria. These reviews included 66 individual studies, of which three quarters were either observational or uncontrolled clinical trials. Overall, the quality of the included SRs was moderate or high. In total, we extracted 14 PICO questions from them and the corresponding results mostly favoured the intervention arm. The most common type of study used to evaluate therapeutic interventions in GIST sarcomas has been non-experimental studies. However, the majority of the interventions are reported as beneficial or probably beneficial by the respective authors of SRs. The evidence mapping is a useful and reliable methodology to identify and present the existing evidence about therapeutic interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 25%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Other 2 8%
Librarian 2 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Other 5 21%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 58%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Unknown 7 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 September 2017.
All research outputs
#6,968,542
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,033
of 2,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,989
of 315,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#13
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,028 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 315,656 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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 59% of its contemporaries.