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 |
Different definitions of CpG island methylator phenotype and outcomes of colorectal cancer: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Epigenetics, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13148-016-0191-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Min Jia, Xu Gao, Yan Zhang, Michael Hoffmeister, Hermann Brenner |
| Abstract |
Contradictory results were reported for the prognostic role of CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) among colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. Differences in the definitions of CIMP were the most common explanation for these discrepancies. The aim of this systematic review was to give an overview of the published studies on CRC prognosis according to the different definitions of CIMP. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE and ISI Web of Science for articles published until 3 April 2015. Data extraction included information about the study population, the definition of CIMP, and investigated outcomes. Thirty-six studies were included in this systematic review. Among them, 30 studies reported the association of CIMP and CRC prognosis and 11 studies reported the association of CIMP with survival after CRC therapy. Overall, 16 different definitions of CIMP were identified. The majority of studies reported a poorer prognosis for patients with CIMP-positive (CIMP+)/CIMP-high (CIMP-H) CRC than with CIMP-negative (CIMP-)/CIMP-low (CIMP-L) CRC. Inconsistent results or varying effect strengths could not be explained by different CIMP definitions used. No consistent variation in response to specific therapies according to CIMP status was found. Comparative analyses of different CIMP panels in the same large study populations are needed to further clarify the role of CIMP definitions and to find out how methylation information can best be used to predict CRC prognosis and response to specific CRC therapies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 | 3 | 38% |
| United States | 2 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 4 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 38% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 116 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 16% |
| Researcher | 18 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 11% |
| Unknown | 30 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 27% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 29 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Unknown | 32 | 28% |
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 04 March 2016.
All research outputs
#6,298,140
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epigenetics
#416
of 1,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,998
of 298,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epigenetics
#23
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 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 1,256 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 298,624 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.