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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Prognostic Role of Pretreatment Plasma D-Dimer in Patients with Solid Tumors: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cellular Physiology & Biochemistry, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1159/000487734 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wenhan Li, Yao Tang, Yongchun Song, Szu Hao Chen, Navard Sisliyan, Ming Ni, Hao Zhang, Qingnuo Zeng, Bin Hou, Xin Xie, Dongmin Chang |
| Abstract |
Elevated pretreatment plasma D-dimer level has been reported as an unfavorable prognostic indicator in several malignancies. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the prognostic value of elevated D-dimer level in solid tumors. A comprehensive search of electronic databases up to June 10, 2017 was carried out by two independent reviewers. We included studies exploring the association between pretreatment plasma D-dimer level and patients' survival outcomes in solid tumors. Overall survival (OS) was regarded as primary outcome and progression-free survival (PFS), disease-free survival (DFS) as well as cancer-specific survival (CSS) were chosen as secondary outcomes. Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were extracted directly or indirectly from included studies. 49 studies with 13001 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Elevated D-dimer was markedly associated with poor OS (pooled HR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.63 - 2.20, P < 0.001). The effect was observed in all different tumor sites, disease stages, cut-off values and ethnicities. Meanwhile, patients with a high plasma D-dimer had a shorter PFS (HR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.22-1.76; P < 0.001), DFS (HR = 2.02, 95% CI = 1.56-2.62) and CSS (HR = 2.04, 95% CI= 1.58 - 2.64). Analysis of the pretreatment plasma D-dimer might provide useful information to predict prognosis in patients with solid tumors. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 25% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 42% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
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 12 March 2018.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Cellular Physiology & Biochemistry
#1,783
of 2,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#304,691
of 344,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cellular Physiology & Biochemistry
#90
of 137 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 2,449 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. 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 344,220 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 137 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.