↓ Skip to main content

Targeting and limiting surgery for patients with node-positive breast cancer

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Targeting and limiting surgery for patients with node-positive breast cancer
Published in
BMC Medicine, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0385-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abigail S. Caudle, Henry M. Kuerer

Abstract

The presence of axillary nodal metastases has a significant impact on locoregional and systemic treatment decisions. Historically, all node-positive patients underwent complete axillary lymph node dissection; however, this paradigm has changed over the last 10 years. The use of sentinel lymph node dissection has expanded from its initial role as a surgical staging procedure in clinically node-negative patients. Clinically node-negative patients with small volume disease found on sentinel lymph node dissection now commonly avoid more extensive axillary surgery. There is interest in expanding this role to node-positive patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a way to restage the axilla in hopes of sparing women who convert to node-negative status from the morbidity of complete nodal clearance. While sentinel lymph node dissection alone may not accomplish this goal, there are novel techniques, such as targeted axillary dissection, that may now allow for reliable nodal staging after chemotherapy.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 65 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 17%
Other 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Student > Master 6 9%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 16 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Mathematics 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 21 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 August 2015.
All research outputs
#14,817,410
of 22,815,414 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,988
of 3,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,032
of 263,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#67
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,815,414 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 3,421 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 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 263,898 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.