↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
26 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.
Article details
Title
Variability in surgical quality in a phase III clinical trial of radical cystectomy in patients with organ‐confined, node‐negative urothelial carcinoma of the bladder
Published in
Journal of Surgical Oncology, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/jso.23903
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Previous studies have shown that variability in surgical technique can affect the outcomes of cooperative group trials. We analyzed measures of surgical quality and clinical outcomes in patients enrolled in the p53-MVAC trial. We performed a post-hoc analysis of patients with pT1-T2N0M0 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder following radical cystectomy (RC) and bilateral pelvic and iliac lymphadenectomy (LND). Measures of surgical quality were examined for associations with time to recurrence (TTR) and overall survival (OS). We reviewed operative and/or pathology reports for 440 patients from 35 sites. We found that only 31% of patients met all suggested trial eligibility criteria of having ≥15 lymph nodes identified in the pathologic specimen (LN#) and having undergone both extended and presacral LND. There was no association between extent of LND, LN#, or presacral LND and TTR or OS after adjustment for confounders and multiple testing. We demonstrated that there was substantial variability in surgical technique within a cooperative group trial. Despite explicit entry criteria, many patients did not undergo per-protocol LNDs. While outcomes were not apparently affected, it is nonetheless evident that careful attention to study design and quality monitoring will be critical to successful future trials. J. Surg. Oncol. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 5 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 26 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 %
United States 1 4%
Japan 1 4%
Unknown 24 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Other 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 6 23%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 62%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Unknown 8 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 February 2016.
All research outputs
#15,679,529
of 27,263,163 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Surgical Oncology
#477
of 701 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,972
of 281,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Surgical Oncology
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,263,163 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 701 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 281,898 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 72% of its contemporaries.