↓ Skip to main content

Oral and injectable Marsdenia tenacissima extract (MTE) as adjuvant therapy to chemotherapy for gastric cancer: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, December 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Oral and injectable Marsdenia tenacissima extract (MTE) as adjuvant therapy to chemotherapy for gastric cancer: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, December 2019
DOI 10.1186/s12906-019-2779-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xu Zhou, Meilu Liu, Qing Ren, Weifeng Zhu, Yang Wang, Haochen Chen, Jianrong Chen

Abstract

Marsdenia tenacissima extract (MTE) is a phytochemical widely used as complementary therapy in cancer care. This systematic review was conducted to investigate the anticancer and detoxification effects of MTE, as an adjuvant therapy to chemotherapy, for treating gastric cancer. Ten databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral or injectable MTE plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for treating gastric cancer up to May 1, 2019. In meta-analyses, proportional odds ratios (PORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled for the ordinal outcomes using the generalized linear model, and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were pooled for dichotomous outcomes using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Seventeen RCTs with 1329 individuals were included, with a moderate to high risk of selection and performance bias. Compared to chemotherapy alone, MTE adjuvant therapy significantly improved the response to anticancer treatment (POR 2.01, 95% CI 1.60-2.53) and patients' performance status (POR 3.15, 95% CI 2.22-4.48) and reduce the incidences of chemotherapy-induced leukopenia (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.56-0.78), thrombocytopenia (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.48-0.86), anemia (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.72-1.10), nausea/vomiting (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69-0.91), hepatic injury (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.96), and peripheral neurotoxicity (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.59-1.01). However, MTE did not significantly alleviate anemia, diarrhea, constipation, kidney injury, and oral mucosal lesions after chemotherapy. Incidence of nausea/vomiting was lower in patients receiving oral MTE than those receiving injectable MTE (RR 0.47 vs. 0.82, interaction P = 0.04). Heterogeneity was generally low among these outcomes. Three out of five RCTs that reported survival data supported the effects of MTE for prolonging progression-free and/or overall survival. No studies reported safety outcomes of MTE. The current evidence with limitations of risk of selection and performance bias suggests that MTE, as an adjuvant therapy to chemotherapy, is effective for inhibiting cancer growth and reducing incidences of multiple chemotherapy side effects. Oral MTE may be a better choice. Uncertainty remains regarding the effects of MTE on survival endpoints and the subgroup differences between acute and chronic use of MTE and between different chemotherapy regimens.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Student > Master 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 18%
Other 3 9%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 15%
Psychology 4 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 10 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 23 January 2020.
All research outputs
#13,229,138
of 16,649,729 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine
#1,990
of 2,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,083
of 392,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine
#162
of 332 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,649,729 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 392,143 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 332 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.