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 |
The prognosis of invasive micropapillary carcinoma compared with invasive ductal carcinoma in the breast: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cancer, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12885-017-3855-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yun Wu, Ning Zhang, Qifeng Yang |
| Abstract |
Invasive micropapillary carcinoma (IMPC) of the breast is a rare variant of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). The prognosis of IMPC compared with that of IDC remains controversial; we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the prognostic difference between IMPC and IDC. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases for relevant studies comparing overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), relapse-free survival (RFS), local-regional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS) or distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates between IMPC and IDC. Fixed-effect and random-effect models were utilized based on the heterogeneity of the eligible studies. Heterogeneity was further evaluated by subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Fourteen studies with 1888 IMPC patients were included in the meta-analysis. The summarized odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was calculated to estimate the prognostic difference between IMPC and IDC. IMPC patients showed an unfavorable prognosis for RFS (OR; 2.04; 95% CI: 1.63-2.55) and LRRFS (OR: 2.82; 95% CI: 1.90-4.17) compared with IDC. However, no significant difference was observed in OS (OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.78-1.10), DSS (OR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.95-1.40) and DMFS (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.67-1.35) between IMPC and IDC. No obvious statistical heterogeneity was detected, except for DSS. Funnel plots and Egger's tests did not reveal publication bias, except for RFS. This analysis showed that IMPC patients have a higher rate of loco-regional recurrence than IDC patients. However, OS, DSS and DMFS were not significantly different between IMPC and IDC. These results could help clinicians select therapeutic and follow-up strategies for IMPC patients. |
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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 14% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 12% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 16 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 28% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 18 | 42% |
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 13 December 2017.
All research outputs
#17,922,331
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#5,000
of 8,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#307,527
of 439,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#109
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,359 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 439,919 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.