↓ Skip to main content

Axillary surgery in women with sentinel node-positive operable breast cancer: a systematic review with meta-analyses

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Axillary surgery in women with sentinel node-positive operable breast cancer: a systematic review with meta-analyses
Published in
SpringerPlus, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-1712-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mia Schmidt-Hansen, Nathan Bromham, Elise Hasler, Malcolm W. Reed

Abstract

Traditionally, women with node-positive operable breast cancer have received complete axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), which is associated with significant morbidity, but recently less invasive alternatives have been explored. We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials assessing alternative approaches to axillary surgery in patients with pathologically-confirmed sentinel node-positive operable breast cancer. We searched on 16/3/15 the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Breast Cancer group; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; PreMEDLINE; EMBASE; WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Portal; ClinicalTrials.gov; conference proceedings from ASCO and the San Antonio Breast Cancer meetings; checked reference lists and contacted authors to identify relevant studies. Double, independent study sifting, extraction, appraisal and summarising were undertaken using standard Cochrane Collaboration methodology. We included three studies (2020 patients) comparing ALND with sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) to SLND alone, and two studies (1899 patients) comparing ALND to axillary radiotherapy (aRT). No differences in survival or recurrence were observed between ALND and SLND or aRT, but morbidity may have been increased in ALND, and all the results were subject to different biases, such as recruitment bias, performance bias, and outcome-reporting bias. Whilst it is encouraging that there appears to be no adverse effect on recurrence or survival, it will be appropriate to confirm these findings and provide additional data confirming quality of life effects and long term outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Master 6 12%
Other 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 15 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 14 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 May 2016.
All research outputs
#13,964,379
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#737
of 1,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,369
of 396,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#62
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,849 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
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 396,850 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.