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 |
Validation of the NCCN‐IPI for diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL): the addition of β2‐microglobulin yields a more accurate GELTAMO‐IPI
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of Haematology, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1111/bjh.14489 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carlos Montalbán, Antonio Díaz‐López, Ivan Dlouhy, Jordina Rovira, Armando Lopez‐Guillermo, Sara Alonso, Alejandro Martín, Juan M. Sancho, Olga García, Jose M. Sánchez, Mario Rodríguez, Silvana Novelli, Antonio Salar, Antonio Gutiérrez, Maria J. Rodríguez‐Salazar, Mariana Bastos, Juan F. Domínguez, Rubén Fernández, Sonia Gonzalez de Villambrosia, José A. Queizan, Raul Córdoba, Raquel de Oña, Andrés López‐Hernandez, Julian M. Freue, Heidys Garrote, Lourdes López, Ana M. Martin‐Moreno, Jose Rodriguez, Víctor Abraira, Juan F. García, the GELTAMO‐IPI Project Investigators |
| Abstract |
The study included 1848 diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)patients treated with chemotherapy/rituximab. The aims were to validate the National Comprehensive Cancer Network International Prognostic Index (NCCN-IPI) and explore the effect of adding high Beta-2 microglobulin (β2M), primary extranodal presentation and intense treatment to the NCCN-IPI variables in order to develop an improved index. Comparing survival curves, NCCN-IPI discriminated better than IPI, separating four risk groups with 5-year overall survival rates of 93%, 83%, 67% and 49%, but failing to identify a true high-risk population. For the second aim the series was split into training and validation cohorts: in the former the multivariate model identified age, lactate dehydrogenase, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, Stage III-IV, and β2M as independently significant, whereas the NCCN-IPI-selected extranodal sites, primary extranodal presentation and intense treatments were not. These results were confirmed in the validation cohort. The Grupo Español de Linfomas/Trasplante de Médula ósea (GELTAMO)-IPI developed here, with 7 points, significantly separated four risk groups (0, 1-3, 4 or ≥5 points) with 11%, 58%, 17% and 14% of patients, and 5-year overall survival rates of 93%, 79%, 66% and 39%, respectively. In the comparison GELTAMO IPI discriminated better than the NCCN-IPI. In conclusion, GELTAMO-IPI is more accurate than the NCCN-IPI and has statistical and practical advantages in that the better discrimination identifies an authentic high-risk group and is not influenced by primary extranodal presentation or treatments of different intensity. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 33% |
| Norway | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Canada | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 68 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 13% |
| Researcher | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 25% |
| Unknown | 14 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 55% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 15 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 16 March 2017.
All research outputs
#8,132,286
of 24,549,201 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Haematology
#2,969
of 7,908 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,621
of 426,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Haematology
#35
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,549,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,908 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 426,199 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.