↓ Skip to main content

Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled multicenter clinical trial (phase IIa) on diindolylmethane’s efficacy and safety in the treatment of CIN: implications for cervical cancer prevention

Overview of attention for article published in EPMA Journal, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled multicenter clinical trial (phase IIa) on diindolylmethane’s efficacy and safety in the treatment of CIN: implications for cervical cancer prevention
Published in
EPMA Journal, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13167-015-0048-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Levon Ashrafian, Gennady Sukhikh, Vsevolod Kiselev, Mikhail Paltsev, Vadim Drukh, Igor Kuznetsov, Ekaterina Muyzhnek, Inna Apolikhina, Evgeniya Andrianova

Abstract

The article presents the results of a clinical trial on the efficacy and safety of a novel pharmaceutical composition in the form of vaginal suppositories containing diindolylmethane in the course of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) I-II conservative treatment. It offers an attractive drug therapy for more personalized prevention of cervical cancer. A total of 78 women of reproductive age were included. This was a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group trial with efficacy determined by histological evaluation of cervical biopsies. The efficacy of active drug treatment (100 and 200 mg/day) in both treatment groups was significantly higher in comparison with the placebo group, according to the primary efficacy end point (proportion of patients with complete CIN regression after 90-180 days of the study drug treatment). The efficacies were 100.0 % (confidence interval (CI) 95 %: 82.35-100.00 %), 90.5 % (CI 95 %: 69.62-98.83 %), and 61.1 % (CI 95 %: 35.75-82.70 %), for the high dose, low does, and placebo, respectively. Adverse events in the placebo group were reported in 22 % of patients (CI 95 %: 7.5-43.7 %); in the first treatment group (100 mg/day), adverse events were reported in 40.0 % of patients (CI 95 %: 21.1-61.3 %); in the second treatment group (200 mg/day), adverse events were reported in 42.0 % of patients (CI 95 %: 22.1-63.4 %). The differences in side effects between treatment groups treated with the active drug and placebo were statistically significant. No serious adverse events were reported in any of the groups. Thus, the use of diindolylmethane in the form of intravaginal suppositories can be effective in patients with CIN I-II and is not accompanied by clinically significant side effects. This approach could be a better option for young women with CIN I-II as it takes in attention their reproductive plans. ID: ChiCTR-INR-15007497 (2 December 2015).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 > Bachelor 7 21%
Student > Master 6 18%
Other 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 11 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 February 2019.
All research outputs
#6,466,580
of 23,999,200 outputs
Outputs from EPMA Journal
#85
of 318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,658
of 396,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EPMA Journal
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,999,200 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 318 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 396,691 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them