↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Prophylactic chemotherapy for hydatidiform mole to prevent gestational trophoblastic neoplasia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

4 X users
2 Facebook pages
1 Wikipedia page
1 research highlight platform


49 Dimensions

Readers on

263 Mendeley
Prophylactic chemotherapy for hydatidiform mole to prevent gestational trophoblastic neoplasia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007289.pub3
Pubmed ID

Qiuyi Wang, Jing Fu, Lina Hu, Fang Fang, Lingxia Xie, Hengxi Chen, Fan He, Taixiang Wu, Theresa A Lawrie


This is an update of the original Cochrane Review published in Cochrane Library, Issue 10, 2012.Hydatidiform mole (HM), also called a molar pregnancy, is characterised by an overgrowth of foetal chorionic tissue within the uterus. HMs may be partial (PM) or complete (CM) depending on their gross appearance, histopathology and karyotype. PMs usually have a triploid karyotype, derived from maternal and paternal origins, whereas CMs are diploid and have paternal origins only. Most women with HM can be cured by evacuation of retained products of conception (ERPC) and their fertility preserved. However, in some women the growth persists and develops into gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN), a malignant form of the disease that requires treatment with chemotherapy. CMs have a higher rate of malignant transformation than PMs. It may be possible to reduce the risk of GTN in women with HM by administering prophylactic chemotherapy (P-Chem). However, P-Chem given before or after evacuation of HM to prevent malignant sequelae remains controversial, as the risks and benefits of this practice are unclear. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of P-Chem to prevent GTN in women with a molar pregnancy. To investigate whether any subgroup of women with HM may benefit more from P-Chem than others. For the original review we performed electronic searches in the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 2, 2012), MEDLINE (1946 to February week 4, 2012) and Embase (1980 to 2012, week 9). We developed the search strategy using free text and MeSH. For this update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 5, 2017), MEDLINE (February 2012 to June week 1, 2017) and Embase (February 2012 to 2017, week 23). We also handsearched reference lists of relevant literature to identify additional studies and searched trial registries. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of P-Chem for HM. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review and extracted data using a specifically designed data collection form. Meta-analyses were performed by pooling data from individual trials using Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5) software in line with standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane methodology. The searches identified 161 records; after de-duplication and title and abstract screening 90 full-text articles were retrieved. From these we included three RCTs with a combined total of 613 participants. One study compared prophylactic dactinomycin to no prophylaxis (60 participants); the other two studies compared prophylactic methotrexate to no prophylaxis (420 and 133 participants). All participants were diagnosed with CMs. We considered the latter two studies to be of poor methodological quality.P-Chem reduced the risk of GTN occurring in women following a CM (3 studies, 550 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.57; I² = 0%; P < 0.00001; low-quality evidence). However, owing to the poor quality (high risk of bias) of two of the included studies, we performed sensitivity analyses excluding these two studies. This left only one small study of high-risk women to contribute data for this primary outcome (59 participants; RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.73; P = 0.01); therefore we consider this evidence to be of low quality.The time to diagnosis was longer in the P-Chem group than the control group (2 studies, 33 participants; mean difference (MD) 28.72, 95% CI 13.19 to 44.24; P = 0.0003; low-quality evidence); and the P-Chem group required more courses to cure subsequent GTN (1 poor-quality study, 14 participants; MD 1.10, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.68; P = 0.0002; very low quality evidence).There were insufficient data to perform meta-analyses for toxicity, overall survival, drug resistance and reproductive outcomes. P-Chem may reduce the risk of progression to GTN in women with CMs who are at a high risk of malignant transformation; however, current evidence in favour of P-Chem is limited by the poor methodological quality and small size of the included studies. As P-Chem may increase drug resistance, delays treatment of GTN and may expose women toxic side effects, this practice cannot currently be recommended.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 263 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 263 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 33 13%
Student > Master 28 11%
Researcher 22 8%
Other 21 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 8%
Other 41 16%
Unknown 97 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 94 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 9%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 2%
Other 21 8%
Unknown 106 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 18 September 2020.
All research outputs
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 323,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 262 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 323,790 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 262 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.