↓ Skip to main content

Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001215.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tom Crosby, Reg Fish, Bernadette Coles, Malcolm Mason

Abstract

Systemic therapies for metastatic cutaneous melanoma, the most aggressive of all skin cancers, remain disappointing. Few lasting remissions are achieved and the therapeutic aim remains one of palliation.Many agents are used alone or in combination with varying degrees of toxicity and cost. It is unclear whether evidence exists to support these complex regimens over best supportive care / placebo. To review the benefits from the use of systemic therapies in metastatic cutaneous melanoma compared to best supportive care/placebo, and to establish whether a 'standard' therapy exists which is superior to other treatments. Randomised controlled trials were identified from the MEDLINE, EMBASE and CCTR/CENTRAL databases. References, conference proceedings, and Science Citation Index/Scisearch were also used to locate trials. Cancer registries and trialists were also contacted. Randomised controlled trials of adults with histologically proven metastatic cutaneous melanoma in which systemic anti-cancer therapy was compared with placebo or supportive care. Study selection was performed by two independent reviewers. Data extraction forms were used for studies which appeared to meet the selection criteria and, where appropriate, full text articles were retrieved and reviewed independently. No randomised controlled trials were found comparing a systemic therapy with placebo or best supportive care in metastatic cutaneous melanoma. There is no evidence from randomised controlled clinical trials to show superiority of systemic therapy over best supportive care / placebo in the treatment of malignant cutaneous melanoma.Given that patients with metastatic melanoma frequently receive systemic therapy, it is our pragmatic view that a future systematic review could compare any systemic treatment, or combination of treatments, to single agent dacarbazine.

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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 37%
Professor 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Librarian 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 11%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 4 21%

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 08 February 2018.
All research outputs
#10,024,138
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,283
of 9,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,096
of 342,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#139
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,882 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 342,833 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.