↓ Skip to main content

Interobserver variation of the histopathological diagnosis in clinical trials on glioma: a clinician’s perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Neuropathologica, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
425 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
275 Mendeley
Title
Interobserver variation of the histopathological diagnosis in clinical trials on glioma: a clinician’s perspective
Published in
Acta Neuropathologica, July 2010
DOI 10.1007/s00401-010-0725-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin J. van den Bent

Abstract

Several studies have provided ample evidence of a clinically significant interobserver variation of the histological diagnosis of glioma. This interobserver variation has an effect on both the typing and grading of glial tumors. Since treatment decisions are based on histological diagnosis and grading, this affects patient care: erroneous classification and grading may result in both over- and undertreatment. In particular, the radiotherapy dosage and the use of chemotherapy are affected by tumor grade and lineage. It also affects the conduct and interpretation of clinical trials on glioma, in particular of studies into grade II and grade III gliomas. Although trials with central pathology review prior to inclusion will result in a more homogeneous patient population, the interpretation and external validity of such trials are still affected by this, and the question whether results of such trials can be generalized to patients diagnosed and treated elsewhere remains to be answered. Although molecular classification may help in typing and grading tumors, as of today this is still in its infancy and unlikely to completely replace histological classification. Routine pathology review in everyday clinical practice should be considered. More objective histological criteria for the grade and lineage of gliomas are urgently needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 275 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 269 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 13%
Researcher 31 11%
Student > Postgraduate 28 10%
Student > Master 27 10%
Student > Bachelor 25 9%
Other 59 21%
Unknown 70 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 99 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 7%
Neuroscience 16 6%
Computer Science 7 3%
Other 30 11%
Unknown 81 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 November 2021.
All research outputs
#6,125,084
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from Acta Neuropathologica
#1,248
of 2,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,812
of 94,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Neuropathologica
#8
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 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 2,361 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 94,522 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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.