| Title |
The Great Debate at “Melanoma Bridge”, Napoli, December 2nd, 2017
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12967-018-1477-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paolo A. Ascierto, Corrado Caracò, Jeffrey E. Gershenwald, Omid Hamid, Merrick Ross, Ryan J. Sullivan, Igor Puzanov |
| Abstract |
As part of the 2017 Melanoma Bridge congress (November 30-December 2, 2017, Napoli, Italy), the great debate session featured counterpoint views from leading experts on three contemporary controversial clinical issues in the care of the melanoma patient. These were: (1) whether complete lymph node dissection should be routinely offered to all melanoma patients with sentinel lymph node-positive disease; (2) whether first-line treatment of BRAF-mutated melanoma should consist of BRAF-targeted therapy or immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors; and (3) whether combined or sequential administration of treatments should be the preferred option in the management of patients with advanced melanoma. Discussion of these three important issues and audience responses are reported here. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 2 | 29% |
| Australia | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 5 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 20% |
| Researcher | 1 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 40% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 20% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
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 25 April 2018.
All research outputs
#6,313,645
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#956
of 4,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,536
of 327,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#18
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 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 4,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 327,033 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 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.