↓ Skip to main content

Partial nephrectomy versus radical nephrectomy for clinical localised renal masses

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 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
Partial nephrectomy versus radical nephrectomy for clinical localised renal masses
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012045.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frank Kunath, Stefanie Schmidt, Laura-Maria Krabbe, Arkadiusz Miernik, Philipp Dahm, Anne Cleves, Mario Walther, Nils Kroeger

Abstract

Partial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy are the relevant surgical therapy options for localised renal cell carcinoma. However, debate regarding the effects of these surgical approaches continues and it is important to identify and summarise high-quality studies to make surgical treatment recommendations. To assess the effects of partial nephrectomy compared with radical nephrectomy for clinically localised renal cell carcinoma. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, BIOSIS, LILACS, Scopus, two trial registries and abstracts from three major conferences to 24 February 2017, together with reference lists; and contacted selected experts in the field. We included a randomised controlled trial comparing partial and radical nephrectomy for participants with small renal masses. One review author screened all of the titles and abstracts; only citations that were clearly irrelevant were excluded at this stage. Next, two review authors independently assessed full-text reports, identified relevant studies, evaluated the eligibility of the studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. The update of the literature search was performed by two independent review authors. We used Review Manager 5 for data synthesis and data analyses. We identified one randomised controlled trial including 541 participants that compared partial nephrectomy to radical nephrectomy. The median follow-up was 9.3 years.Based on low quality evidence, we found that time-to-death of any cause was decreased using partial nephrectomy (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.18). This corresponds to 79 more deaths (5 more to 173 more) per 1000. Also based on low quality evidence, we found no difference in serious adverse events (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.19 to 22.34). Findings are consistent with 4 more surgery-related deaths (3 fewer to 78 more) per 1000.Based on low quality evidence, we found no difference in time-to-recurrence (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.24). This corresponds to 12 more recurrences (14 fewer to 70 more) per 1000. Due to the nature of reporting, we were unable to analyse overall rates for immediate and long-term adverse events. We found no evidence on haemodialysis or quality of life.Reasons for downgrading related to study limitations (lack of blinding, cross-over), imprecision and indirectness (a substantial proportion of patients were ultimately found not to have a malignant tumour). Based on the finding of a single trial, we were unable to conduct any subgroup or sensitivity analyses. Partial nephrectomy may be associated with a decreased time-to-death of any cause. With regards to surgery-related mortality, cancer-specific survival and time-to-recurrence, partial nephrectomy appears to result in little to no difference.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 166 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 16%
Student > Bachelor 21 13%
Researcher 17 10%
Other 16 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 8%
Other 35 21%
Unknown 36 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 73 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 12%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Psychology 4 2%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 46 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 December 2020.
All research outputs
#4,072,893
of 17,175,498 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,385
of 11,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,557
of 272,908 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#171
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,175,498 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,634 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.7. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 272,908 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.