↓ Skip to main content

Effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with gastric cancer: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with gastric cancer: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Cancer, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12885-018-4027-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhi-Feng Miao, Xing-Yu Liu, Zhen-Ning Wang, Ting-Ting Zhao, Ying-Ying Xu, Yong-Xi Song, Jin-Yu Huang, Hao Xu, Hui-Mian Xu

Abstract

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is extensively used in the treatment of patients with gastric cancer (GC), particularly in high risk, advanced gastric cancer. Previous trials testing the efficacy of NAC have reported inconsistent results. This study compares the combined use of NAC and surgery with surgery alone for GC by using a meta-analytic approach. We performed an electronic search of PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on NAC published before Oct 2015. The primary outcome of the studies was data on survival rates for patients with GC. The summary results were pooled using the random-effects model. We included 12 prospective RCTs reporting data on 1538 GC patients. Patients who received NAC were associated with significant improvement of OS (P = 0.001) and PFS (P < 0.001). Furthermore, NAC therapy significantly increased the incidence of 1-year survival rate (SR) (P = 0.020), 3-year SR (P = 0.011), and 4-year SR (P = 0.001). Similarly, NAC therapy was associated with a lower incidence of 1-year (P < 0.001), 2-year (P < 0.001), 3-year (P < 0.001), 4-year (P = 0.001), and 5-year recurrence rate (P = 0.002). Conversely, patients who received NAC also experienced a significantly increased risk of lymphocytopenia (P = 0.003), and hemoglobinopathy (P = 0.021). The findings of this study suggested that NAC is associated with significant improvement in the outcomes of survival and disease progression for GC patients while also increasing some toxicity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 12%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Lecturer 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 15 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Computer Science 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 16 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 April 2018.
All research outputs
#12,758,973
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,650
of 8,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,675
of 440,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#79
of 220 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 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 8,368 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 68% 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 440,235 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 220 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 64% of its contemporaries.