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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Targeting epigenetic pathways in acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome: a systematic review of hypomethylating agents trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Epigenetics, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13148-016-0233-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Seongseok Yun, Nicole D. Vincelette, Ivo Abraham, Keith D. Robertson, Martin E. Fernandez-Zapico, Mrinal M. Patnaik |
| Abstract |
Aberrant DNA methylation has been identified as a key molecular event regulating the pathogenesis of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS); myeloid neoplasms with an inherent risk of transformation to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Based on the above findings, DNA hypomethylating agents (HMA) have been widely used to treat AML and MDS, especially in elderly patients and in those who are not eligible for allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT). Our goal was to determine if there is any therapeutic advantage of HMA vs. conventional care regimens (CCR) and indirectly compare the efficacy of azacitidine and decitabine in this patient population. Eligible studies were limited to randomized controlled trials comparing HMA to CCR in adult patients with AML or MDS. Overall survival (OS) rate was 33.2 vs. 21.4 % (RR 0.83, 95 % CI 0.71-0.98) and overall response rate (ORR) 23.7 vs. 13.4 % (RR 0.87, 95 % CI 0.81-0.93) for HMA and CCR, respectively. In subgroup analyses, only azacitidine treatment showed OS improvement (RR 0.75, 95 % CI 0.64-0.98) and not decitabine. Cytogenetic risk or bone marrow blast count did not have independent prognostic impact. Collectively, these results demonstrate that HMA have superior outcomes compared to CCR and suggest that azacitidine in comparison to decitabine, may be more effective. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 30% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 20% |
| France | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 60% |
| Scientists | 4 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Peru | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 89 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 24 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Unknown | 19 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 35% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 18 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 22 | 24% |
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 17 November 2016.
All research outputs
#3,965,472
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epigenetics
#251
of 1,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,501
of 352,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epigenetics
#9
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,259 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 352,714 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.