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 |
The prognostic role of controlling nutritional status scores in patients with solid tumors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinica Chimica Acta, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.cca.2017.09.021 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ruo-Fei Liang, Jun-Hong Li, Mao Li, Yuan Yang, Yan-Hui Liu |
| Abstract |
We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the association between preoperative controlling nutritional status (CONUT) scores in various solid tumors and clinical outcomes. Relevant studies published up to August 12, 2017 were identified using electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. The pooled hazard ratios (HR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) were calculated to explore the relationship between preoperative CONUT score and prognosis. In total, 674 patients with solid tumors from four published studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled HR for OS was 1.98 (95% CI, 1.34-2.91, p=0.001), indicating that patients with high CONUT scores had worse OS. The pooled HR for EFS was 1.98 (95% CI, 1.34-2.93, p=0.001), revealing that high CONUT scores were significantly associated with short EFS. Our data suggest that high preoperative CONUT scores indicate poor prognosis for patients with solid tumors. Further studies are needed to verify the significance of CONUT scores in clinical practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 17% |
| Researcher | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 42% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 8% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 33% |
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 02 October 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinica Chimica Acta
#4,057
of 4,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#289,102
of 328,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinica Chimica Acta
#33
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,794 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 328,838 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.