| Title |
Fludarabine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drugs, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2165/00003495-200767110-00008 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vanessa R. Anderson, Caroline M. Perry |
| Abstract |
Fludarabine (Fludara), a purine nucleoside analogue, has been extensively evaluated in the treatment of a number of lymphoproliferative malignancies, including various types of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Clinical studies have shown that fludarabine (alone, and particularly as a component of combination therapy) can result in high overall and complete response in adults with various types of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, including follicular lymphoma. As mono- or combination therapy, intravenous fludarabine is as effective as several other standard treatment regimens in treatment-naive patients and is also effective in patients with recurrent or refractory disease. The efficacy of fludarabine therapy is improved with the use of rituximab, as part of the initial therapeutic regimen or as maintenance therapy, and deserves consideration. The once-daily oral formulation was effective in the treatment of patients with relapsed indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; however, further studies are required to confirm its role and establish its efficacy relative to that of standard treatment in this patient population. Fludarabine has generally acceptable tolerability; however, it is associated with haematological adverse events, including myelosuppression. Fludarabine, therefore, provides a highly effective first- or second-line option in the treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 12% |
| Researcher | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 36% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 20% |
| Unknown | 6 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 February 2014.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Drugs
#1,511
of 3,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,219
of 187,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs
#539
of 1,379 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,464 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 187,431 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,379 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.