↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Cyclophosphamide versus ifosfamide for paediatric and young adult bone and soft tissue sarcoma patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Cyclophosphamide versus ifosfamide for paediatric and young adult bone and soft tissue sarcoma patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006300.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Renée L Mulder, Marios Paulides, Thorsten Langer, Leontien CM Kremer, Elvira C van Dalen

Abstract

Alkylating agents, such as cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide, play a major role in the improved survival of children and young adults with bone and soft tissue sarcoma. However, there is still controversy as to their comparative anti-tumour efficacy and possible adverse effects. This is the second update of the first systematic review evaluating the state of evidence on the effectiveness of cyclophosphamide as compared to ifosfamide for paediatric and young adult patients with sarcoma. The primary obective was to compare the effectiveness, that is response rate, event-free survival and overall survival, of cyclophosphamide with that of ifosfamide for paediatric and young adult patients with sarcoma. Secondary objectives were to determine effects of these agents on toxicities (including late effects) and quality of life. We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2015, issue 2), MEDLINE/PubMed (from 1966 to March 2015) and EMBASE/Ovid (from 1980 to March 2015) with prespecified terms. In addition, we searched reference lists of relevant articles, conference proceedings and ongoing trial databases (www.controlled-trials.com; searched June 2015). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide for the treatment of different types of sarcoma in paediatric and young adult patients (aged less than 30 years at diagnosis). Chemotherapy other than either cyclophosphamide or ifosfamide should have been the same in both treatment groups. Two authors independently performed the study selection. No studies meeting the inclusion criteria of the review were identified. No RCTs or CCTs comparing the effectiveness of cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide in the treatment of bone and soft tissue sarcoma in children and young adults were identified. Therefore no definitive conclusions can be made about the effects of cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide in these patients. Based on the currently available evidence, we are not able to give recommendations for clinical practice. More high-quality research is needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 3%
Unknown 56 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 21%
Other 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 14 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 16 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 16 December 2019.
All research outputs
#4,364,220
of 16,402,841 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,881
of 11,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,259
of 255,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#190
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,402,841 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,502 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.2. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 255,063 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 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.