↓ Skip to main content

Bendamustine plus rituximab versus CHOP plus rituximab as first-line treatment for patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority…

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
1224 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
711 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Bendamustine plus rituximab versus CHOP plus rituximab as first-line treatment for patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority trial
Published in
The Lancet, February 2013
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(12)61763-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mathias J Rummel, Norbert Niederle, Georg Maschmeyer, G Andre Banat, Ulrich von Grünhagen, Christoph Losem, Dorothea Kofahl-Krause, Gerhard Heil, Manfred Welslau, Christina Balser, Ulrich Kaiser, Eckhart Weidmann, Heinz Dürk, Harald Ballo, Martina Stauch, Fritz Roller, Juergen Barth, Dieter Hoelzer, Axel Hinke, Wolfram Brugger, on behalf of the Study group indolent Lymphomas

Abstract

Rituximab plus chemotherapy, most often CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), is the first-line standard of care for patients with advanced indolent lymphoma, and for elderly patients with mantle-cell lymphoma. Bendamustine plus rituximab is effective for relapsed or refractory disease. We compared bendamustine plus rituximab with CHOP plus rituximab (R-CHOP) as first-line treatment for patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 711 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 <1%
Ecuador 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Other 4 <1%
Unknown 694 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 132 19%
Other 120 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 61 9%
Student > Postgraduate 50 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 47 7%
Other 160 23%
Unknown 141 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 427 60%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 21 3%
Chemistry 8 1%
Other 37 5%
Unknown 168 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 97. 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 09 January 2024.
All research outputs
#433,178
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#4,186
of 42,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,750
of 204,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#35
of 510 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 42,669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 67.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 204,949 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 510 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.