↓ Skip to main content

Screening for nasopharyngeal cancer

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Screening for nasopharyngeal cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008423.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shujuan Yang, Siying Wu, Jing Zhou, Xiao Y Chen

Abstract

Nasopharyngeal cancer is endemic in a few well-defined populations. The prognosis for advanced nasopharyngeal cancer is poor, but early-stage disease is curable and a high survival rate can be achieved. Screening for early-stage disease could lead to improved outcomes. Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) serology and nasopharyngoscopy are most commonly used for screening. The efficacy and true benefit of screening remain uncertain due to potential selection, lead-time and length-time biases. To determine the effectiveness of screening of asymptomatic individuals by EBV serology and/or nasopharyngoscopy in reducing the mortality of nasopharyngeal cancer compared to no screening. To assess the impact of screening for nasopharyngeal cancer on incidence, survival, adverse effects, cost-effectiveness and quality of life. The Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group (CENTDG) Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the CENTDG Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 6); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Clinicaltrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 6 July 2015. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) and controlled clinical trials (CCT) evaluating screening for nasopharyngeal cancer versus no screening. Randomisation either by clusters or individuals was acceptable. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Our primary outcome measure was nasopharyngeal cancer-specific mortality. Secondary outcomes were incidence of nasopharyngeal cancer by stage and histopathological classification at diagnosis, survival (two-year, three-year, five-year and 10-year), harms of screening (physical and psychosocial), quality of life (via validated tools such as the SF-36 and patient satisfaction), cost-effectiveness and all-cause mortality. We identified no trials that met the review inclusion criteria. We retrieved 31 full-text studies for further investigation following the search. However, none met the eligibility criteria for a RCT or CCT investigation on the efficacy of screening for nasopharyngeal cancer. No data from RCTs or CCTs are available to allow us to determine the efficacy of screening for nasopharyngeal cancer, or the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of a screening strategy. High-quality studies with long-term follow-up of mortality and cost-effectiveness are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 47 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 35%
Unspecified 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 12 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 35%
Unspecified 10 21%
Psychology 8 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 8 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 November 2016.
All research outputs
#3,459,954
of 12,771,465 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,491
of 10,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,212
of 279,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#194
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,771,465 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,428 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 279,606 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.