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 |
Clinicopathological and prognostic significance of programmed death ligand-1 expression in breast cancer: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cancer, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12885-017-3670-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hye Min Kim, Jinae Lee, Ja Seung Koo |
| Abstract |
Programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) may be a useful molecule for targeted immunotherapy. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to investigate PD-L1 expression in breast cancer and its associations with clinicopathological factors and outcomes, which may help determine whether PD-L1 expression is a useful prognostic marker. The Medline Ovid, Cochrane, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Knowledge databases were searched for studies that evaluated the prognostic or clinicopathological significance of PD-L1 expression in patients with breast cancer, and reported at least one survival-related outcome. Six studies that included 7877 cases were selected for the analysis. Higher PD-L1 expression in all cells was related to higher histological grade and lymph node metastasis. Higher PD-L1 expression in tumor cell was related to larger tumor size, estrogen receptor negativity, progesterone receptor negativity, human epidermal growth factor type-2 positivity, and triple-negative breast cancer. PD-L1 positivity in all cells was associated with poorer disease-free survival, although it was not significantly associated with overall survival. The present meta-analysis revealed that cases of breast cancer with PD-L1 positivity in all cells exhibited higher histological grades, lymph node metastasis, and poorer disease-free survival. Therefore, positive expression of PD-L1 may be a useful prognostic marker in breast cancer. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 19 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 36% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 20 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 24 October 2017.
All research outputs
#12,762,447
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,662
of 8,357 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,324
of 326,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#38
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,357 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 326,542 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 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 63% of its contemporaries.