↓ Skip to main content

The prognostic role of controlling nutritional status scores in patients with solid tumors

Overview of attention for article published in Clinica Chimica Acta, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 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
The prognostic role of controlling nutritional status scores in patients with solid tumors
Published in
Clinica Chimica Acta, November 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.cca.2017.09.021
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruo-Fei Liang, Jun-Hong Li, Mao Li, Yuan Yang, Yan-Hui Liu

Abstract

We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the association between preoperative controlling nutritional status (CONUT) scores in various solid tumors and clinical outcomes. Relevant studies published up to August 12, 2017 were identified using electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. The pooled hazard ratios (HR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) were calculated to explore the relationship between preoperative CONUT score and prognosis. In total, 674 patients with solid tumors from four published studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled HR for OS was 1.98 (95% CI, 1.34-2.91, p=0.001), indicating that patients with high CONUT scores had worse OS. The pooled HR for EFS was 1.98 (95% CI, 1.34-2.93, p=0.001), revealing that high CONUT scores were significantly associated with short EFS. Our data suggest that high preoperative CONUT scores indicate poor prognosis for patients with solid tumors. Further studies are needed to verify the significance of CONUT scores in clinical practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 25%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 25%
Lecturer 1 13%
Researcher 1 13%
Student > Postgraduate 1 13%
Other 1 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 75%
Unspecified 1 13%
Engineering 1 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 October 2017.
All research outputs
#10,849,931
of 12,241,449 outputs
Outputs from Clinica Chimica Acta
#2,632
of 2,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,490
of 273,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinica Chimica Acta
#31
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,241,449 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,920 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 273,048 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.