↓ Skip to main content

Solid Organ Transplantation in Patients With Preexisting Malignancies in Remission

Overview of attention for article published in Transplantation, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
Solid Organ Transplantation in Patients With Preexisting Malignancies in Remission
Published in
Transplantation, July 2018
DOI 10.1097/tp.0000000000002178
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sergio A. Acuna, Rinku Sutradhar, S. Joseph Kim, Nancy N. Baxter

Abstract

Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) with pretransplant malignancies (PTM) have worse overall survival (OS) compared to recipients without history of malignancy. However, it is unknown whether the increased risk of mortality is due to recurrent cancer-related deaths. All SOTR in Ontario between 1991 and 2010 were identified and matched 1:2 to recipients without PTM using a propensity score. OS was compared using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazard models. For cancer-specific mortality and cancer recurrence, cause-specific hazard models were used and the cumulative incidence was plotted. Recipients with PTM had a worse OS compared to recipients without PTM (median OS: 10.3 versus 13.4 years). Recipients with PTM were not only at increased risk of cancer-specific mortality (CSHR:1.85 [95%CI: 1.20, 2.86]) but also at increased risk of noncancer death (CSHR:1.29 [95%CI: 1.08, 1.54]). Compared to recipients without PTM, recipients with high-risk PTM had higher all-cause mortality (HR:1.81 [95%CI: 1.47, 2.23]). Recipients with low-risk PTM were not at increased risk (HR:1.06 [95%CI: 0.86, 1.31]). Recipients with PTM are at increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to recipients without PTM. This increased risk was noted for both cancer-specific and noncancer mortality. However, only those with high-risk PTM had worse outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 2 29%
Researcher 2 29%
Other 1 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 86%
Arts and Humanities 1 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 13 June 2019.
All research outputs
#1,512,897
of 13,603,570 outputs
Outputs from Transplantation
#206
of 5,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,663
of 271,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Transplantation
#6
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,603,570 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,651 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
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 271,921 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.