↓ Skip to main content

Surgery for limited‐stage small‐cell lung cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 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 (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

1 policy source
6 X users
1 Wikipedia page


75 Dimensions

Readers on

200 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.
Surgery for limited‐stage small‐cell lung cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011917.pub2
Pubmed ID

Hayley Barnes, Katharine See, Stephen Barnett, Renée Manser


Current treatment guidelines for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) recommend concomitant platinum-based chemo-radiotherapy plus prophylactic cranial irradiation, based on the premise that SCLC disseminates early, and is chemosensitive. However, although there is usually a favourable initial response, relapse is common and the cure rate for limited-stage SCLC remains relatively poor. Some recent clinical practice guidelines have recommended surgery for stage 1 (limited) SCLC followed by adjuvant chemotherapy, but this recommendation is largely based on the findings of observational studies. To determine whether, in patients with limited-stage SCLC, surgical resection of cancer improves overall survival and treatment-related deaths compared with radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or a combination of radiotherapy and chemotherapy, or best supportive care. We performed searches on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science up to 11 January 2017. We handsearched review articles, clinical trial registries, and reference lists of retrieved articles. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with adults diagnosed with limited-stage SCLC, confirmed by cytology or histology, and radiological assessment, considered medically suitable for resection and radical radiotherapy, which randomised participants to surgery versus any other intervention. We imported studies identified by the search into a reference manager database. We retrieved the full-text version of relevant studies, and two review authors independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were overall survival and treatment-related deaths; and secondary outcome measures included loco-regional progression, quality of life, and adverse events. We included three trials with 330 participants. We judged the quality of the evidence as very low for all the outcomes. The quality of the data was limited by the lack of complete outcome reporting, unclear risk of bias in the methods in which the studies were conducted, and the age of the studies (> 20 years). The methods of cancer staging and types of surgical procedures, which do not reflect current practice, reduced our confidence in the estimation of the effect.Two studies compared surgery to radiation therapy, and in one study chemotherapy was administered to both arms. One study administered initial chemotherapy, then responders were randomised to surgery versus control; following, both groups underwent chest and whole brain irradiation.Due to the clinical heterogeneity of the trials, we were unable to pool results for meta-analysis.All three studies reported overall survival. One study reported a mean overall survival of 199 days in the surgical arm, compared to 300 days in the radiotherapy arm (P = 0.04). One study reported overall survival as 4% in the surgical arm, compared to 10% in the radiotherapy arm at two years. Conversely, one study reported overall survival at two years as 52% in the surgical arm, compared to 18% in the radiotherapy arm. However this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.12).One study reported early postoperative mortality as 7% for the surgical arm, compared to 0% mortality in the radiotherapy arm. One study reported the difference in mean degree of dyspnoea as -1.2 comparing surgical intervention to radiotherapy, indicating that participants undergoing radiotherapy are likely to experience more dyspnoea. This was measured using a non-validated scale. Evidence from currently available RCTs does not support a role for surgical resection in the management of limited-stage small-cell lung cancer; however our conclusions are limited by the quality of the available evidence and the lack of contemporary data. The results of the trials included in this review may not be generalisable to patients with clinical stage 1 small-cell lung cancer carefully staged using contemporary staging methods. Although some guidelines currently recommend surgical resection in clinical stage 1 small-cell lung cancer, prospective randomised controlled trials are needed to determine if there is any benefit in terms of short- and long-term mortality and quality of life compared with chemo-radiotherapy alone.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 200 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 12%
Student > Bachelor 22 11%
Other 17 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 9%
Researcher 16 8%
Other 33 17%
Unknown 71 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 6%
Psychology 7 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 2%
Other 15 8%
Unknown 79 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 16 August 2022.
All research outputs
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 323,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 323,500 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 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.