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 |
Prognostic significance of c-Met in breast cancer: a meta-analysis of 6010 cases
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diagnostic Pathology, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13000-015-0296-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shunchao Yan, Xin Jiao, Huawei Zou, Kai Li |
| Abstract |
The prognostic value of c-Met in breast cancer remains controversial. A meta-analysis of the impact of c-Met in breast cancer was performed by searching published data. Published studies analyzing overall survival (OS) or relapse free survival (RFS) according to c-Met expression were searched. The principal outcome measures were hazard ratios (HRs) for RFS or OS according to c-Met expression. Combined HRs were calculated using fixed- or random- effects models according to the heterogeneity. Twenty-one studies involving 6,010 patients met our selection criteria. The impact of c-Met on RFS and OS was investigated in 12 and 17 studies, respectively. The meta-analysis results showed that c-Met overexpression significantly predicted poor RFS and OS in unselected breast cancer. Subgroup analysis indicated that c-Met overexpression was correlated with poor RFS and OS in Western patients, but was not associated with RFS or OS in Asian patients. C-Met was associated with poor OS in lymph node negative breast cancer and with poor RFS in hormone-receptor positive and triple negative breast cancer, but was not associated with prognosis in human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-2 positive breast cancer. C-Met overexpression is an adverse prognostic marker in breast cancer, except among Asian and HER-2 positive patients. The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/1869780799156041. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 States | 3 | 50% |
| India | 1 | 17% |
| Brazil | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 15% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 12 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 27% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 14 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 17 June 2015.
All research outputs
#6,286,217
of 22,811,321 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Pathology
#161
of 1,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,322
of 266,605 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Pathology
#17
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,811,321 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,125 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 266,605 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.