↓ Skip to main content

Non-resection versus resection for an asymptomatic primary tumour in patients with unresectable Stage IV colorectal cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
104 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 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
Non-resection versus resection for an asymptomatic primary tumour in patients with unresectable Stage IV colorectal cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008997.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roberto Cirocchi, Stefano Trastulli, Iosief Abraha, Nereo Vettoretto, Carlo Boselli, Alessandro Montedori, Amilcare Parisi, Giuseppe Noya, Cameron Platell

Abstract

In a majority of patients with stage IV colorectal cancer, the metastatic disease is not resectable and the focus of management is on how best to palliate the patient. How to manage the primary tumour is an important part of palliation. A small proportion of these patients present with either obstructing or perforating cancers and require urgent surgical care. However, a majority are relatively asymptomatic from their primary cancer. Chemotherapy has been shown to prolong survival in this group of patients, and a majority of patients would be treated this way. Nonetheless, A recent meta-analysis (Stillwell 2010) suggests an improved overall survival and reduced requirement for emergency surgery in those patients who undergo primary tumour resection. This review was also able to quantify the mortality and morbidity associated with surgery to remove the primary.

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 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ecuador 2 2%
Spain 2 2%
Estonia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 104 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 24%
Student > Master 19 17%
Other 16 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 23 21%
Unknown 8 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 80 72%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Psychology 3 3%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 8 7%

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 23 October 2012.
All research outputs
#9,618,855
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,267
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,575
of 127,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#80
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 127,957 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.