↓ Skip to main content

Effect of testing for cancer on cancer‐ and venous thromboembolism (VTE)‐related mortality and morbidity in patients with unprovoked VTE

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Effect of testing for cancer on cancer‐ and venous thromboembolism (VTE)‐related mortality and morbidity in patients with unprovoked VTE
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010837.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robertson L, Yeoh SE, Stansby G, Agarwal R, Robertson, Lindsay, Yeoh, Su Ern, Stansby, Gerard, Agarwal, Roshan

Abstract

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a collective term for two conditions: deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). A proportion of patients with VTE have no underlying or immediately predisposing risk factors and the VTE is referred to as unprovoked. Unprovoked VTE can often be the first clinical manifestation of an underlying malignancy. This has raised the question of whether patients with an unprovoked VTE should be investigated for an underlying cancer. Treatment for VTE is different in cancer and non-cancer patients and a correct diagnosis would ensure that patients received the optimal treatment for VTE to prevent recurrence and further morbidity. Furthermore, an appropriate cancer diagnosis at an earlier, potentially curative stage could avoid the risk of cancer progression and thus lead to improvements in cancer-related mortality and morbidity. To determine whether testing for undiagnosed cancer in patients with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT or PE) is effective in reducing cancer and VTE-related mortality and morbidity and to establish which tests for cancer are most useful. The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched January 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) (2014, Issue 12). Clinical trials databases were searched. The reference lists of relevant articles were also checked. Randomised and quasi-randomised trials in which patients with an unprovoked VTE were allocated to receive specific tests for cancer or clinically indicated tests only were eligible for inclusion in this review. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cancer-related mortality and VTE-related mortality. Selection of the studies, quality assessment and data extraction were completed independently by two review authors. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. Two studies with a combined total of 396 patients met the inclusion criteria for this review. Both studies assessed the effect of testing for cancer versus clinically indicated tests only in patients with an unprovoked VTE. The quality of the evidence was moderate because although the studies were judged to be at low or unclear risk of bias, there was concern that the studies were small as reflected in the wide confidence intervals (CIs). Pooled analysis showed that testing for cancer was consistent with either a benefit or no benefit on cancer-related mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.67, P = 0.26). One study showed that, overall, malignancies were less advanced in patients belonging to the extensive screening group than in patients of the control group (64% versus 20%, P = 0.047) and that tested patients were diagnosed earlier than untested patients (mean 1 month versus 11.6 months to cancer diagnosis from the time of diagnosis of VTE). Standard deviations were not provided for time to diagnosis, so it was not possible to perform an independent statistical analysis on this association. Neither study measured all-cause mortality, VTE-related morbidity and mortality, side effects of anticoagulation, side effects of cancer tests or patient satisfaction. Testing for cancer in patients with idiopathic VTE leads to earlier diagnosis of cancer at an earlier stage of the disease. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions concerning the effectiveness of testing for undiagnosed cancer in patients with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT or PE) in reducing cancer and VTE-related morbidity and mortality. The results are imprecise and could be consistent with either harm or benefit. Further good-quality large-scale randomised controlled trials are required before firm conclusions can be made.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 58 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Other 5 8%
Researcher 5 8%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 13 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 04 February 2016.
All research outputs
#955,209
of 23,310,485 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,071
of 12,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,930
of 259,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#53
of 271 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,310,485 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,444 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 259,599 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 271 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.