| Title |
Non-resection versus resection for an asymptomatic primary tumour in patients with unresectable Stage IV colorectal cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008997.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Roberto Cirocchi, Stefano Trastulli, Iosief Abraha, Nereo Vettoretto, Carlo Boselli, Alessandro Montedori, Amilcare Parisi, Giuseppe Noya, Cameron Platell |
| Abstract |
In a majority of patients with stage IV colorectal cancer, the metastatic disease is not resectable and the focus of management is on how best to palliate the patient. How to manage the primary tumour is an important part of palliation. A small proportion of these patients present with either obstructing or perforating cancers and require urgent surgical care. However, a majority are relatively asymptomatic from their primary cancer. Chemotherapy has been shown to prolong survival in this group of patients, and a majority of patients would be treated this way. Nonetheless, A recent meta-analysis (Stillwell 2010) suggests an improved overall survival and reduced requirement for emergency surgery in those patients who undergo primary tumour resection. This review was also able to quantify the mortality and morbidity associated with surgery to remove the primary. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 177 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Estonia | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 171 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 27 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 27 | 15% |
| Other | 22 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 36 | 20% |
| Unknown | 37 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 99 | 56% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Psychology | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 7% |
| Unknown | 40 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 April 2015.
All research outputs
#6,827,116
of 22,919,505 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,477
of 12,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,026
of 167,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#133
of 207 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,919,505 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,332 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.5. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 167,845 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 207 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.