↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review and meta-analysis of immunohistochemical biomarkers that differentiate chromophobe renal cell carcinoma from renal oncocytoma

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Pathology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
A systematic review and meta-analysis of immunohistochemical biomarkers that differentiate chromophobe renal cell carcinoma from renal oncocytoma
Published in
Journal of Clinical Pathology, March 2016
DOI 10.1136/jclinpath-2015-203585
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keng Lim Ng, Christudas Morais, Anne Bernard, Nicholas Saunders, Hemamali Samaratunga, Glenda Gobe, Simon Wood

Abstract

Numerous immunohistochemical (IHC) biomarkers have been employed to aid in the difficult differentiation between chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) and renal oncocytoma (RO). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature was carried out to summarise and analyse the evidence for discriminatory IHC biomarkers to differentiate the two entities. PubMed database was used to identify relevant literature. Primary end point was comparison of positive immunostaining of the biomarkers in chRCC and RO, with extracted data used to calculate OR and 95% CI and statistical I(2) test of heterogeneity for multiple studies. One hundred and nine manuscripts were available for review. Data extracted were subjected to quantitative meta-analysis. Ten most effective biomarkers (OR of chRCC/RO and CI) are: amylase α1A (n=129, OR=0.001, 95% CI 0.0001 to 0.019); Wnt-5a (n=38, OR=0.0076, 95% CI 0.0004 to 0.015); FXYD2 (n=57, OR=130, 95% CI 14.2 to 1192.3); ankyrin-repeated protein with a proline-rich region (ARPP) (n=25, OR=0.0054, 95% CI 0.0002 to 0.12); cluster of differentiation 63 (CD63) (n=62, diffuse (chRCC) vs apical/polar (RO) stain pattern); transforming growth factor β 1 (TGFβ1) (n=34, membranous (chRCC) vs cytoplasmic (RO)); cytokeratin 7 (CK7) (11 studies, n=448, pooled OR=44.22, 95% CI 22.52 to 86.64, I(2)=15%); S100A1 (4 studies, n=124, pooled OR=0.01, 95% CI 0 to 0.03, I(2)=0%); caveolin-1 (2 studies, n=102, pooled OR=32.95, 95% CI 3.67 to 296.1, I(2)=70%) and claudin-7 (3 studies, n=89, pooled OR=24.7, 95% CI 6.28 to 97.1, I(2)=0%). We recommend a panel of IHC biomarkers of amylase α1A, Wnt-5a, FXYD2, ARPP, CD63, TGFβ1, CK7, S100A1, caveolin-1 and claudin-7 to aid in the differentiation of chRCC and RO.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 12 24%
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Lecturer 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 10 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 51%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 8%
Computer Science 2 4%
Mathematics 1 2%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 13 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 July 2016.
All research outputs
#13,972,009
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Pathology
#2,699
of 3,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,015
of 298,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Pathology
#33
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,931 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 298,965 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.