↓ Skip to main content

Survival Benefit of Three Different Therapies in Postoperative Patients With Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 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
Survival Benefit of Three Different Therapies in Postoperative Patients With Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2018.00929
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dong-Mei Wu, Shan Wang, Xin Wen, Xin-Rui Han, Yong-Jian Wang, Min Shen, Shao-Hua Fan, Zi-Feng Zhang, Juan Zhuang, Qun Shan, Meng-Qiu Li, Bin Hu, Chun-Hui Sun, Jun Lu, Yuan-Lin Zheng

Abstract

Purpose: Gastric cancer is mainly treated by gastrectomy, the results of which were unsatisfactory without any adjuvant treatments. This study aimed to examine the performance of radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and chemoradiotherapy after surgery in order to acquire the optimal adjuvant treatment. Method: Embase and PubMed were retrieved to conduct a systematic research. Hazard ratios (HR) of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as outcomes were calculated by synthesizing direct and indirect evidence to evaluate the efficacy of three treatments against surgery alone. The P-score ranking was utilized to rank the therapies. Consistency was assessed by heat plot. Begg's test was performed to evaluate publication bias. Results: A total of 35 randomized controlled studies (RCTs) with 8973 patients were included in our network meta-analysis (NMA). As for efficacy outcomes, OS and PFS of 1, 2, 3, and 5 years, all revealed chemoradiotherapy (CRT) as the best of three adjuvant therapies. Meanwhile, P-score ranking results also displayed that CRT was the optimal regimen. Additionally, radiotherapy (RT) and chemotherapy (CT) were two alternative options following CRT since RT performed well in short-term survival while CT could improve the long-term survival. Conclusion: CRT was the most recommended therapy to accompany surgery according to our results. However, no analysis about the safety of these three treatments was mentioned in our study. Further studies including safety outcomes were required to draw a more comprehensive conclusion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 1 17%
Other 1 17%
Unknown 4 67%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 17%
Unknown 4 67%
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 11 September 2018.
All research outputs
#15,544,609
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#6,605
of 16,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,472
of 334,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#156
of 391 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,458 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 334,082 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 391 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 54% of its contemporaries.