↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic molecular biomarkers for malignant pleural effusions

Overview of attention for article published in Future Oncology, June 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
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.
Title
Diagnostic molecular biomarkers for malignant pleural effusions
Published in
Future Oncology, June 2011
DOI 10.2217/fon.11.45
Pubmed ID
Authors

Krishna B Sriram, Vandana Relan, Belinda E Clarke, Edwina E Duhig, Ian A Yang, Rayleen V Bowman, YC Gary Lee, Kwun M Fong

Abstract

Malignant pleural effusions (MPEs) are a common and important cause of cancer-related mortality and morbidity. Prompt diagnosis using minimally invasive tests is important because the median survival after diagnosis is only 4-9 months. Pleural fluid cytology is pivotal to current MPE diagnostic algorithms but has limited sensitivity (30-60%). Consequently, many patients need to undergo invasive diagnostic tests such as thoracoscopic pleural biopsy. Recent genomic, transcriptomic, methylation and proteomic studies on cells within pleural effusions have identified novel molecular diagnostic biomarkers that demonstrate potential in complementing cytology in the diagnosis of MPEs. Several challenges will need to be addressed prior to the incorporation of these molecular tests into routine clinical diagnosis, including validation of molecular diagnostic markers in well-designed prospective, comparative and cost-effectiveness studies. Ultimately, minimally invasive diagnostic tests that can be performed quickly will enable clinicians to provide the most effective therapies for patients with MPEs in a timely fashion.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 6 18%
Researcher 6 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 4 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 8 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 13 October 2011.
All research outputs
#18,297,449
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from Future Oncology
#1,691
of 2,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,549
of 111,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Future Oncology
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,273 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 111,167 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.