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 |
Second-line treatment for advanced NSCLC without actionable mutations: is immunotherapy the ‘panacea’ for all patients?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-018-1011-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alessandro Morabito |
| Abstract |
The therapeutic approach for the second-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without actionable mutations has been revolutionized by the recent approval of new effective drugs with various mechanisms of action, including nintedanib, ramucirumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and afatinib. The recent network meta-analysis of Créquit et al. (BMC Medicine, 15:193, 2017) compared the effectiveness and tolerability of the second-line treatments for advanced NSCLC with wild-type or unknown status for EGFR. The authors found that immunotherapy might be more efficacious than the currently recommended treatments. However, their meta-analysis does not take into account the role of predictive biomarkers - this is indeed a crucial point in the decision-making process considering that only a fraction of advanced NSCLC patients might derive a long-term benefit from second-line immunotherapy. The identification of molecular biomarkers that can predict a response to immune checkpoints, angiogenesis, and EGFR inhibitors remains an important goal of clinical research in order to maximize the benefit of these agents and to aid clinicians in the decision-making process.Please see related article: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-017-0954-x. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 57 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 16% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 17 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 30% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 20 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 February 2018.
All research outputs
#14,967,526
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#3,021
of 3,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,960
of 336,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#42
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,455 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 336,877 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.