↓ Skip to main content

Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2000
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 (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
95 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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, April 2000
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001215
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.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ecuador 2 6%
Netherlands 1 3%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 30 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 21%
Other 5 15%
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Master 4 12%
Other 8 24%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 62%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 2 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#1,838,960
of 12,808,036 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,545
of 10,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,899
of 224,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#111
of 193 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,808,036 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 10,430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 224,373 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 193 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.