↓ Skip to main content

Prognostic instrument for survival outcome in melanoma patients: based on data from the population-based Swedish Melanoma Register

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Cancer (1965), May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
Prognostic instrument for survival outcome in melanoma patients: based on data from the population-based Swedish Melanoma Register
Published in
European Journal of Cancer (1965), May 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.02.029
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Lyth, R. Mikiver, K. Nielsen, K. Isaksson, C. Ingvar, Lyth, J, Mikiver, R, Nielsen, K, Isaksson, K, Ingvar, C

Abstract

Several major analyses have identified a consistent set of independent risk factors for cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM). A few prognostic models have been presented but some are based on a limited number of patients and others are based on selected groups of patients referred to major institutions. No nationwide population-based prognostic instrument for survival of CMM has been presented. The Swedish Melanoma Register (SMR) database covers 99% of CMM diagnosed in Sweden and includes today >50,000 cases. To create a prognostic instrument based on SMR data to give highly reliable risk profiles for patients diagnosed with localised CMM. Clinicopathological data were linked to the cause of death registry for calculation of CMM-specific survival. A generalised gamma method was used to derive 1, 5 and 10year probabilities of death for each combination of patient and tumour data: age, sex, tumour site, tumour thickness, tumour ulceration, Clark's level of invasion and when applicable also outcome of sentinel node biopsy (SNB). Tumour thickness had the highest prognostic impact, explaining 77% of the model. Women had 30% lower risk of death because of CMM than men. Presence of ulceration nearly doubled the risk. If the patient had a positive SNB status the risk of death due to CMM increased three times versus a negative SNB status. This unique population-based prognostic model for primary CMM shows better survival than the American Joint Commission on Cancer prognostic model widely used. The reason is probably that the referral bias is eliminated in a population-based cohort.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 11%
Unknown 8 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 2 22%
Student > Bachelor 2 22%
Student > Master 2 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 56%
Unspecified 1 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 11%
Computer Science 1 11%
Materials Science 1 11%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 July 2017.
All research outputs
#4,783,689
of 8,838,295 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Cancer (1965)
#1,398
of 2,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,760
of 279,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Cancer (1965)
#29
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,838,295 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 279,816 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.