↓ Skip to main content

Interval debulking surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
Interval debulking surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006014.pub7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Siriwan Tangjitgamol, Sumonmal Manusirivithaya, Malinee Laopaiboon, Pisake Lumbiganon, Andrew Bryant

Abstract

Interval debulking surgery (IDS), following induction or neoadjuvant chemotherapy, may have a role in treating advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (stage III to IV) where primary debulking surgery is not an option. To assess the effectiveness and complications of IDS for women with advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2012, Issue 6, MEDLINE and EMBASE for the original review in to June 2012. We updated the searches in June 2009, 2012 and 2015 for the review updates. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing survival of women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer, who had IDS performed between cycles of chemotherapy after primary surgery with survival of women who had conventional treatment (primary debulking surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy). Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Searches for additional information from study authors were attempted. We performed meta-analysis of overall and progression-free survival (PFS), using random-effects models. Three RCTs randomising 853 women, of whom 781 were evaluated, met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of three trials for overall survival (OS) found no statistically significant difference between IDS and chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.06, I² = 58%). Subgroup analysis for OS in two trials, where the primary surgery was not performed by gynaecologic oncologists or was less extensive, showed a benefit of IDS (HR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.87, I² = 0%). Meta-analysis of two trials for PFS found no statistically significant difference between IDS and chemotherapy alone (HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.33, I² = 83%). Rates of toxic reactions to chemotherapy were similar in both arms (risk ratio = 1.19, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.66, I² = 0%), but little information was available for other adverse events or quality or life (QoL). We found no conclusive evidence to determine whether IDS between cycles of chemotherapy would improve or decrease the survival rates of women with advanced ovarian cancer, compared with conventional treatment of primary surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. IDS appeared to yield benefit only in women whose primary surgery was not performed by gynaecologic oncologists or was less extensive. Data on QoL and adverse events were inconclusive.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 77 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 19 24%
Unknown 13 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Mathematics 2 3%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 15 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 January 2016.
All research outputs
#7,230,456
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,686
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,692
of 352,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#162
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 352,222 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 197 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.