↓ Skip to main content

Surgery versus radiotherapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2001
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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.
Title
Surgery versus radiotherapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2001
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002079
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mike Shelley, J Barber, Timothy J Wilt, Malcolm Mason

Abstract

Muscle invasive bladder cancer is a serious clinical problem and is fatal for the majority of patients. Alternative treatments for this condition are radical cystectomy or radical radiotherapy. The choice of treatment varies according to the resident country. The ideal treatment would be a bladder preserving therapy with total eradication of the tumour without compromising survival. The objective of this review was to compare the overall survival after radical surgery (cystectomy) versus radical radiotherapy in patients with muscle invasive cancer. We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (July 2001), MEDLINE (July 2001), EMBASE (July 2001), CancerLIT (July 2001), Healthstar (July 2001) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (July 2001). Attempts to contact authors of unpublished data were undertaken. Randomised trials comparing surgery versus radiotherapy were eligible for assessment. Three reviewers assessed trial quality based on the Cochrane Guidelines. Data were extracted from the text of the article or extrapolated from the Kaplan-Meier plot. The Peto odds ratio was determined to compare the overall survival and disease-specific survival. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis and treatment actually received. Three randomised trials comparing pre-operative radiotherapy followed by radical cystectomy (surgery) versus radical radiotherapy with salvage cystectomy (radical radiotherapy) were eligible for assessment. These trials represented a total of 439 patients, 221 randomised to surgery and 218 to radical radiotherapy. Three trials were combined for the overall survival results and one for the disease-specific analysis [Bloom 1982]. The mean overall survival (intention-to-treat analysis) at 3 and 5 years were 45% and 36% for surgery, and 28% and 20% for radiotherapy, respectively. Peto odds ratio (95% Confidence Interval) analysis consistently favoured surgery in terms of overall survival. The results were significantly in favour of surgery at 3 years (OR = 1.91, 95% CI 1.30 -2.82) and at 5 years (OR = 1.85 95% CI 1.22 - 2.82). On a 'treatment received' basis, the results were significantly in favour of surgery at 3 (OR = 1.84, 95% CI 1.17 - 2.90) and 5 years (OR = 2.17, 95% CI 1.39 - 3.38) for overall survival and at 3 years (OR = 1.96, 95% CI 1.06,3.65) for disease-specific survival. The analysis of this review suggests that there is an overall survival benefit with radical surgery compared to radical radiotherapy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. However, it must be considered that only three trials were included for analysis, the patients numbers were small and that many patients did not receive the treatment they were randomised to. It must also be noted that many improvements in both radiotherapy and surgery have taken place since the initiation of these trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 22 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Design 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 24 48%

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 26 October 2016.
All research outputs
#6,509,555
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,581
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,103
of 284,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#105
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. 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 284,610 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 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.