↓ Skip to main content

Rural–urban differences in surgical treatment, regional lymph node examination, and survival in endometrial cancer patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Causes & Control, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Rural–urban differences in surgical treatment, regional lymph node examination, and survival in endometrial cancer patients
Published in
Cancer Causes & Control, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10552-017-0998-4
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecological malignancy and one of few cancers with an increasing US mortality rate. Rural patients may have less access to specialty care affecting their receipt of surgery and adequate lymphadenectomy (AL). We sought to assess rural-urban differences in EC surgery, lymphadenectomy, and survival. We analyzed data from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database on EC patients (2004-2013). We performed univariate analyses to compare rural and urban patients on demographic and clinical characteristics and receipt of nodal examination and AL. We assessed rural-urban differences in trends of receipt of AL, performed logistic regression to evaluate differences in receipt of surgery, nodal examination, and AL, and performed survival analysis. Rural patients were less likely to have any lymph nodes removed, had a smaller median number removed, and a smaller proportion had AL. Even after controlling for established risk factors, rural patients had lower odds of lymph node examination and adequate AL than urban patients and also had poorer survival. Future research should continue to assess the association between access to care and disparities in surgical care and the effect of these disparities on survival.

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 7 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 28 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 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 18%
Researcher 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 11 39%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 15 54%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 11 September 2019.
All research outputs
#6,137,871
of 33,779,198 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Causes & Control
#723
of 2,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,261
of 493,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Causes & Control
#6
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,779,198 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,681 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 493,645 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.