↓ Skip to main content

Predictors of Survival in Patients With Bone Metastasis of Lung Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, January 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
129 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Predictors of Survival in Patients With Bone Metastasis of Lung Cancer
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, January 2008
DOI 10.1007/s11999-007-0051-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hideshi Sugiura, Kenji Yamada, Takahiko Sugiura, Toyoaki Hida, Tetsuya Mitsudomi

Abstract

The prognosis of patients with bone metastasis from lung cancer has not been well documented. We assessed the survival rates after bone metastasis and prognostic factors in 118 patients with bone metastases from lung cancer. The cumulative survival rates after bone metastasis from lung cancer were 59.9% at 6 months, 31.6% at 1 year, and 11.3% at 2 years. The mean survival was 9.7 months (median, 7.2 months; range, 0.1-74.5 months). A favorable prognosis was more likely in women and patients with adenocarcinoma, solitary bone metastasis, no metastases to the appendicular bone, no pathologic fractures, performance status 1 or less, use of systemic chemotherapy, and use of an epithelial growth factor receptor inhibitor. Analyses of single and multiple variables indicated better prognoses for patients with adenocarcinoma, no evidence of appendicular bone metastases, and treatment with an epithelial growth factor receptor inhibitor. The mean survival period was longer in a small group treated with an epithelial growth factor receptor inhibitor than in the larger untreated group. The data preliminarily suggest treatment with an epithelial growth factor receptor inhibitor may improve survival after bone metastasis.

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 %
Portugal 1 2%
Ukraine 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 55 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 12 21%
Researcher 12 21%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 14 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 60%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 16%
Unspecified 6 10%
Engineering 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 5 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 January 2013.
All research outputs
#6,783,898
of 12,518,238 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#3,345
of 5,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,151
of 255,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#22
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,518,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,291 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 255,461 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 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.