↓ Skip to main content

Chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2000
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2000
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002139
Pubmed ID
Abstract

The role of chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer was not clear. A systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis was therefore undertaken to evaluate the available evidence from all relevant randomised trials. To evaluate the effect of cytotoxic chemotherapy on survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. To investigate whether or not pre-defined patient sub-groups benefit more or less from chemotherapy. MEDLINE and CANCERLIT searches were supplemented by information from trial registers and by hand searching relevant meeting proceedings and by discussion with relevant trialists and organisations. Trials comparing primary treatments of surgery, surgery + radiotherapy, radical radiotherapy or supportive care versus the same primary treatment, plus chemotherapy were eligible for inclusion provided that they randomised non-small cell lung cancer patients using a method which precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment. A quantitative meta-analysis using updated information from individual patients from all available randomised trials was carried out. Data from all patients randomised in all eligible trials were sought directly from those responsible. Updated information on survival, and date of last follow up were obtained, as were details of treatment allocated, date of randomisation, age, sex, histological cell type, stage and performance status. To avoid potential bias, information was requested for all randomised patients including those who had been excluded from the investigators' original analyses. All analyses were done on intention to treat on the endpoint of survival. For trials using cisplatin-based regimens, subgroup analyses by age, sex, histological cell type, tumour stage and performance status were also done. Data from 52 trials and 9387 patients were included. The results for modern regimens containing cisplatin favoured chemotherapy in all comparisons and reached conventional levels of significance when used with radical radiotherapy and with supportive care. Trials comparing surgery with surgery plus chemotherapy gave a hazard ratio of 0.87 (13% reduction in the risk of death, equivalent to an absolute benefit of 5% at 5 years). Trials comparing radical radiotherapy with radical radiotherapy plus chemotherapy gave a hazard ratio 0.87 (13% reduction in the risk of death equivalent to an absolute benefit of 4% at 2 years), and trials comparing supportive care with supportive care plus chemotherapy gave a hazard ratio of 0.73 (27% reduction in the risk of death equivalent to a 10% improvement in survival at one year). The essential drugs needed to achieve these effects were not identified. No difference in the size of effect was seen in any subgroup of patients. In all but the radical radiotherapy setting, older trials using long term alkylating agents tended to show a detrimental effect of chemotherapy. This effect reached conventional significance in the adjuvant surgical comparison. At the outset of this meta-analysis there was considerable pessimism about the role of chemotherapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. These results offer hope of progress and suggest that chemotherapy may have a role in treating this disease.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 1 3%
Unknown 26 90%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Unknown 26 90%

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 16 September 2019.
All research outputs
#4,095,886
of 13,635,041 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,103
of 10,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,577
of 265,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#190
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,635,041 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,695 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 265,799 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.