↓ Skip to main content

Histological Grading of Hepatocellular Carcinoma—A Systematic Review of Literature

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
Histological Grading of Hepatocellular Carcinoma—A Systematic Review of Literature
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2017.00193
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sebastiao N. Martins-Filho, Caterina Paiva, Raymundo Soares Azevedo, Venancio Avancini Ferreira Alves

Abstract

Histological grading typically reflects the biological behavior of solid tumors, thus providing valuable prognostic information. This is also expected in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), although limited access to biopsy samples and a lack of standardization might hinder its full predictive value in this cancer. In order to better understand the current practices of histological grading in HCC, we examined the latest publications addressing its impact on the outcome of patients following surgical treatment. We searched the PubMed (MEDLINE) database under the headings "hepatocellular carcinoma," "grade OR grading," and "prognosis." Qualitative and quantitative assessment of publications was performed according to the reference they used to grade their tumors (e.g., Edmondson-Steiner, World Health Organization). We reviewed a total of 216 articles: 114 enclosed adequate information and were included herein. Among these, we found divergences and inaccuracies in the histological grade assessment of this cancer, which might have led to a non-standardized grade distribution, with further impact on data analysis. Nevertheless, in most of them, poor tumor differentiation correlated with worse prognosis, expressed by lower overall and/or disease-free survival. While histological grading of HCC has an important prognostic role, there is an unsatisfactory heterogeneity on the microscopic assessment of this tumor, urging for a movement toward standardization.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 99 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 17%
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Other 6 6%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 26 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 11%
Computer Science 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 30 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 10 November 2017.
All research outputs
#18,576,001
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#3,999
of 5,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,432
of 328,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#53
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,776 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 328,166 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.