| Title |
Cyclophosphamide versus ifosfamide for paediatric and young adult bone and soft tissue sarcoma patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd006300.pub4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Renée L Mulder, Marios Paulides, Thorsten Langer, Leontien CM Kremer, Elvira C van Dalen |
| Abstract |
Alkylating agents, such as cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide, play a major role in the improved survival of children and young adults with bone and soft tissue sarcoma. However, there is still controversy as to their comparative anti-tumour efficacy and possible adverse effects. This is the second update of the first systematic review evaluating the state of evidence on the effectiveness of cyclophosphamide as compared to ifosfamide for paediatric and young adult patients with sarcoma. The primary obective was to compare the effectiveness, that is response rate, event-free survival and overall survival, of cyclophosphamide with that of ifosfamide for paediatric and young adult patients with sarcoma. Secondary objectives were to determine effects of these agents on toxicities (including late effects) and quality of life. We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2015, issue 2), MEDLINE/PubMed (from 1966 to March 2015) and EMBASE/Ovid (from 1980 to March 2015) with prespecified terms. In addition, we searched reference lists of relevant articles, conference proceedings and ongoing trial databases (www.controlled-trials.com; searched June 2015). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide for the treatment of different types of sarcoma in paediatric and young adult patients (aged less than 30 years at diagnosis). Chemotherapy other than either cyclophosphamide or ifosfamide should have been the same in both treatment groups. Two authors independently performed the study selection. No studies meeting the inclusion criteria of the review were identified. No RCTs or CCTs comparing the effectiveness of cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide in the treatment of bone and soft tissue sarcoma in children and young adults were identified. Therefore no definitive conclusions can be made about the effects of cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide in these patients. Based on the currently available evidence, we are not able to give recommendations for clinical practice. More high-quality research is needed. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 85 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 23% |
| Unknown | 25 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 6% |
| Psychology | 4 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Unknown | 30 | 35% |
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 08 October 2015.
All research outputs
#16,783,081
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,370
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,263
of 286,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#256
of 286 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 286,539 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 286 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.