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 |
Sunitinib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review of UK Real World Data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in oncology, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fonc.2015.00195 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Miriam Argyropulo-Palmer, Aaron Jenkins, Davinder Singh Theti, James Larkin, David Montgomery |
| Abstract |
Real world data (RWD) are increasingly used to inform drug reimbursement decisions, but it is unclear how well outcomes from real world studies compare to those of clinical trials. This systematic review seeks to compare outcomes for sunitinib in routine UK clinical practice with the sunitinib registrational and expanded-access program clinical trials. Systematic review of the real world published literature was undertaken. UK observational studies recording first- or second-line sunitinib efficacy were included. A qualitative summary of the results and comparison to the controlled clinical trials was conducted. Fifteen real world studies were included, 14 of which were only available as posters/presentations. Real world study reporting quality was generally low, making comparisons with the clinical trials difficult. Practice relating to starting dose, dose modification, timing of therapy initiation, and other factors varied between centers. Median progression-free survival and adverse events were generally comparable to the clinical trial outcomes, but overall survival was not. There are few published data on sunitinib use in UK clinical practice. Studies are characterized by lack of peer reviewed publication and heterogeneity in design, reporting, and analysis. For use of RWD in the reimbursement setting, data collection and reporting will need to improve. There are few published data on sunitinib use in UK clinical practice. Studies are characterized by lack of peer reviewed publication and heterogeneity in design, reporting, and analysis. Practice varies considerably between different UK centers. Median progression-free survival and adverse events are generally comparable to the clinical trial outcomes, but overall survival is not. For use of real world data in the reimbursement setting, data collection and reporting will need to improve. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 50% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 26 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 11% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 44% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 22% |
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 02 May 2019.
All research outputs
#16,722,913
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#6,609
of 22,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,401
of 279,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#23
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,416 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 279,409 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 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 56% of its contemporaries.