| Title |
Rationale for the treatment of Wilms tumour in the UMBRELLA SIOP–RTSG 2016 protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Reviews Urology, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1038/nrurol.2017.163 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marry M. van den Heuvel-Eibrink, Janna A. Hol, Kathy Pritchard-Jones, Harm van Tinteren, Rhoikos Furtwängler, Arnauld C. Verschuur, Gordan M. Vujanic, Ivo Leuschner, Jesper Brok, Christian Rübe, Anne M. Smets, Geert O. Janssens, Jan Godzinski, Gema L. Ramírez-Villar, Beatriz de Camargo, Heidi Segers, Paola Collini, Manfred Gessler, Christophe Bergeron, Filippo Spreafico, Norbert Graf |
| Abstract |
The Renal Tumour Study Group of the International Society of Paediatric Oncology (SIOP-RTSG) has developed a new protocol for the diagnosis and treatment of childhood renal tumours, the UMBRELLA SIOP-RTSG 2016 (the UMBRELLA protocol), to continue international collaboration in the treatment of childhood renal tumours. This protocol will support integrated biomarker and imaging research, focussing on assessing the independent prognostic value of genomic changes within the tumour and the volume of the blastemal component that survives preoperative chemotherapy. Treatment guidelines for Wilms tumours in the UMBRELLA protocol include recommendations for localized, metastatic, and bilateral disease, for all age groups, and for relapsed disease. These recommendations have been established by a multidisciplinary panel of leading experts on renal tumours within the SIOP-RTSG. The UMBRELLA protocol should promote international collaboration and research and serve as the SIOP-RTSG best available treatment standard. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 33% |
| Spain | 1 | 11% |
| Nepal | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 89% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 206 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 206 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 33 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 9% |
| Researcher | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 53 | 26% |
| Unknown | 45 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 103 | 50% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 7 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 6% |
| Unknown | 65 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 07 September 2022.
All research outputs
#3,619,997
of 23,283,373 outputs
Outputs from Nature Reviews Urology
#728
of 2,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,883
of 329,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Reviews Urology
#11
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,283,373 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,020 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 329,754 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.