↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Chemotherapy versus surgery for initial treatment in advanced ovarian epithelial cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

4 tweeters


16 Dimensions

Readers on

74 Mendeley
Chemotherapy versus surgery for initial treatment in advanced ovarian epithelial cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2021
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005343.pub5
Pubmed ID

Sarah L Coleridge, Andrew Bryant, Sean Kehoe, Jo Morrison


Epithelial ovarian cancer presents at an advanced stage in the majority of women. These women require surgery and chemotherapy for optimal treatment. Conventional treatment has been to perform surgery first and then give chemotherapy. However, there may be advantages to using chemotherapy before surgery. To assess whether there is an advantage to treating women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer with chemotherapy before debulking surgery (neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT)) compared with conventional treatment where chemotherapy follows debulking surgery (primary debulking surgery (PDS)). We searched the following databases on 11 February 2019: CENTRAL, Embase via Ovid, MEDLINE (Silver Platter/Ovid), PDQ and MetaRegister. We also checked the reference lists of relevant papers that were identified to search for further studies. The main investigators of relevant trials were contacted for further information. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (Federation of International Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (FIGO) stage III/IV) who were randomly allocated to treatment groups that compared platinum-based chemotherapy before cytoreductive surgery with platinum-based chemotherapy following cytoreductive surgery. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in each included trial. We found 1952 potential titles, with a most recent search date of February 2019, of which five RCTs of varying quality and size met the inclusion criteria. These studies assessed a total of 1713 women with stage IIIc/IV ovarian cancer randomised to NACT followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS) or PDS followed by chemotherapy. We pooled results of the three studies where data were available and found little or no difference with regard to overall survival (OS) (1521 women; Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) or progression-free survival in four trials where we were able to pool data (1631 women; HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events, surgical morbidity and quality of life (QoL) outcomes were poorly and incompletely reported across studies. There may be clinically meaningful differences in favour of NACT compared to PDS with regard to serious adverse effects (SAE grade 3+). These data suggest that NACT may reduce the risk of need for blood transfusion (risk ratio (RR) 0.80; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.99; four studies,1085 women; low-certainty evidence), venous thromboembolism (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.90; four studies, 1490 women; low-certainty evidence), infection (RR 0.30; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.56; four studies, 1490 women; moderate-certainty evidence), compared to PDS. NACT probably reduces the need for stoma formation (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.72; two studies, 581 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and bowel resection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.92; three studies, 1213 women; moderate-certainty evidence), as well as reducing postoperative mortality (RR 0.18; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.54:five studies, 1571 women; moderate-certainty evidence). QoL on the EORTC QLQ-C30 scale produced inconsistent and imprecise results in two studies (MD -1.34, 95% CI -2.36 to -0.32; participants = 307; very low-certainty evidence) and use of the QLQC-30 and QLQC-Ov28 in another study (MD 7.60, 95% CI 1.89 to 13.31; participants = 217; very low-certainty evidence) meant that little could be inferred. The available moderate-certainty evidence suggests there is little or no difference in primary survival outcomes between PDS and NACT. NACT may reduce the risk of serious adverse events, especially those around the time of surgery, and the need for bowel resection and stoma formation. These data will inform women and clinicians and allow treatment to be tailored to the person, taking into account surgical resectability, age, histology, stage and performance status. Data from an unpublished study and ongoing studies are awaited.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 19%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 5%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 22 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 25 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 March 2021.
All research outputs
of 20,420,776 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 406,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,420,776 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.1. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 406,069 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.