↓ Skip to main content

RECIST 1.1—Update and clarification: From the RECIST committee

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Cancer (1965), May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
5 X users
patent
9 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1204 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
725 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
RECIST 1.1—Update and clarification: From the RECIST committee
Published in
European Journal of Cancer (1965), May 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.03.081
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lawrence H. Schwartz, Saskia Litière, Elisabeth de Vries, Robert Ford, Stephen Gwyther, Sumithra Mandrekar, Lalitha Shankar, Jan Bogaerts, Alice Chen, Janet Dancey, Wendy Hayes, F. Stephen Hodi, Otto S. Hoekstra, Erich P. Huang, Nancy Lin, Yan Liu, Patrick Therasse, Jedd D. Wolchok, Lesley Seymour

Abstract

The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) were developed and published in 2000, based on the original World Health Organisation guidelines first published in 1981. In 2009, revisions were made (RECIST 1.1) incorporating major changes, including a reduction in the number of lesions to be assessed, a new measurement method to classify lymph nodes as pathologic or normal, the clarification of the requirement to confirm a complete response or partial response and new methodologies for more appropriate measurement of disease progression. The purpose of this paper was to summarise the questions posed and the clarifications provided as an update to the 2009 publication.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 725 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 723 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 91 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 85 12%
Student > Master 62 9%
Other 60 8%
Student > Postgraduate 52 7%
Other 148 20%
Unknown 227 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 296 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 44 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 22 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 2%
Engineering 11 2%
Other 70 10%
Unknown 264 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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 30 August 2023.
All research outputs
#786,775
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Cancer (1965)
#109
of 6,872 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,368
of 328,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Cancer (1965)
#5
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,872 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 328,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.