↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Screening for nasopharyngeal cancer

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 Mendeley
Title
Screening for nasopharyngeal cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008423.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shujuan Yang, Siying Wu, Jing Zhou, Xiao Y Chen

Abstract

Nasopharyngeal cancer is endemic in a few well-defined populations. The prognosis for advanced nasopharyngeal cancer is poor, but early-stage disease is curable and a high survival rate can be achieved. Screening for early-stage disease could lead to improved outcomes. Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) serology and nasopharyngoscopy are most commonly used for screening. The efficacy and true benefit of screening remain uncertain due to potential selection, lead-time and length-time biases. To determine the effectiveness of screening of asymptomatic individuals by EBV serology and/or nasopharyngoscopy in reducing the mortality of nasopharyngeal cancer compared to no screening. To assess the impact of screening for nasopharyngeal cancer on incidence, survival, adverse effects, cost-effectiveness and quality of life. The Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group (CENTDG) Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the CENTDG Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 6); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Clinicaltrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 6 July 2015. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) and controlled clinical trials (CCT) evaluating screening for nasopharyngeal cancer versus no screening. Randomisation either by clusters or individuals was acceptable. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Our primary outcome measure was nasopharyngeal cancer-specific mortality. Secondary outcomes were incidence of nasopharyngeal cancer by stage and histopathological classification at diagnosis, survival (two-year, three-year, five-year and 10-year), harms of screening (physical and psychosocial), quality of life (via validated tools such as the SF-36 and patient satisfaction), cost-effectiveness and all-cause mortality. We identified no trials that met the review inclusion criteria. We retrieved 31 full-text studies for further investigation following the search. However, none met the eligibility criteria for a RCT or CCT investigation on the efficacy of screening for nasopharyngeal cancer. No data from RCTs or CCTs are available to allow us to determine the efficacy of screening for nasopharyngeal cancer, or the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of a screening strategy. High-quality studies with long-term follow-up of mortality and cost-effectiveness are needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 170 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 20%
Other 12 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 7%
Researcher 11 6%
Student > Bachelor 11 6%
Other 26 15%
Unknown 65 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 12%
Psychology 11 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 68 40%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 November 2016.
All research outputs
#7,313,980
of 25,836,587 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,775
of 13,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,625
of 298,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#222
of 301 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,836,587 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.2. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 298,305 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 301 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.