| Title |
Do online prognostication tools represent a valid alternative to genomic profiling in the context of adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer? A systematic review of the literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
American Journal of Surgery, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.05.006 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hiba El Hage Chehade, Umar Wazir, Kinan Mokbel, Abdul Kasem, Kefah Mokbel |
| Abstract |
Decision-making regarding adjuvant chemotherapy has been based on clinical and pathological features. However, such decisions are seldom consistent. Web-based predictive models have been developed using data from cancer registries to help determine the need for adjuvant therapy. More recently, with the recognition of the heterogenous nature of breast cancer, genomic assays have been developed to aid in the therapeutic decision-making. We have carried out a comprehensive literature review regarding online prognostication tools and genomic assays to assess whether online tools could be used as valid alternatives to genomic profiling in decision-making regarding adjuvant therapy in early breast cancer. Breast cancer has been recently recognized as a heterogenous disease based on variations in molecular characteristics. Online tools are valuable in guiding adjuvant treatment, especially in resource constrained countries. However, in the era of personalized therapy, molecular profiling appears to be superior in predicting clinical outcome and guiding therapy. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Israel | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 71 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 18 | 25% |
| Unknown | 16 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 37% |
| Engineering | 5 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 19 | 27% |
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 28 June 2017.
All research outputs
#16,725,651
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Surgery
#3,709
of 5,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,164
of 331,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Surgery
#51
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 5,053 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 331,711 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 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.