↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
40 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.
Article details
Title
Evaluation of Bortezomib-Induced Neuropathy Using Total Neuropathy Score (Reduced and Clinical Versions) and NCI CTCAE v4.0 in Newly Diagnosed Patients With Multiple Myeloma Receiving Bortezomib-Based Induction
Published in
Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia, July 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.clml.2017.06.035
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy (BiPN) is a dose-limiting adverse effect of bortezomib-based therapy for multiple myeloma (MM). The reporting of BiPN is variable because of the use of different neuropathy scales. Most investigators use the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI CTCAE). We prospectively evaluated the incidence of BiPN in treatment-naive patients with MM receiving weekly cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CyBorD) in 28-day cycles using 3 neuropathy scores: Total Neuropathy Score-reduced (TNSr) and -clinical (TNSc), and NCI CTCAE v4.0. Twenty-six patients received CyBorD. Twenty patients completed follow-up. The rates of occurrence of BiPN were as follows: TNSr - 55% (n = 11), TNSc - 40% (n = 8), and NCI CTCAE - 45% (n = 9). All 3 scales showed worsening after treatment (P < .01). When compared to BiPN by TNSr, sensitivities for NCI CTCAE and TNSc were 77.8% and 88.9%, respectively. Specificity was 63.3% for both NCI CTCAE and TNSc. Among 12 patients who did not have BiPN by NCI CTCAE scale, 41.7% (n = 5) and 16.7% (n = 2) patients satisfied the criteria for BiPN by TNSr and TNSc, respectively. The higher detection rate of neuropathy by TNSr and TNSc is probably due to increment in scores that are allotted for increase in anatomic extent of sensorimotor involvement, unlike the NCI CTCAE scale, which requires functional limitation for increase in grade. NCI CTCAE may be suboptimal in comparison to TNSr and TNSc in assessment of BiPN because it may miss worsening neuropathy without functional limitation.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Master 5 13%
Other 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 12 30%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 15 38%
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 30 August 2017.
All research outputs
#23,398,957
of 34,559,526 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia
#1,564
of 2,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,566
of 359,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia
#29
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,559,526 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 2,715 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 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 359,965 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.