↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Review of meta-analyses evaluating surrogate endpoints for overall survival in oncology

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, October 2012
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 (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Review of meta-analyses evaluating surrogate endpoints for overall survival in oncology
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, October 2012
DOI 10.2147/ott.s36683
Pubmed ID
Authors

Beth Sherrill, Kaye, Sandin, Cappelleri, Chen

Abstract

Overall survival (OS) is the gold standard in measuring the treatment effect of new drug therapies for cancer. However, practical factors may preclude the collection of unconfounded OS data, and surrogate endpoints are often used instead. Meta-analyses have been widely used for the validation of surrogate endpoints, specifically in oncology. This research reviewed published meta-analyses on the types of surrogate measures used in oncology studies and examined the extent of correlation between surrogate endpoints and OS for different cancer types. A search was conducted in October 2010 to compile available published evidence in the English language for the validation of disease progression-related endpoints as surrogates of OS, based on meta-analyses. We summarize published meta-analyses that quantified the correlation between progression-based endpoints and OS for multiple advanced solid-tumor types. We also discuss issues that affect the interpretation of these findings. Progression-free survival is the most commonly used surrogate measure in studies of advanced solid tumors, and correlation with OS is reported for a limited number of cancer types. Given the increased use of crossover in trials and the availability of second-/third-line treatment options available to patients after progression, it will become increasingly more difficult to establish correlation between effects on progression-free survival and OS in additional tumor types.

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.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 3%
France 1 3%
Belgium 1 3%
Unknown 27 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 33%
Other 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 43%
Mathematics 4 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 5 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 December 2014.
All research outputs
#10,606,409
of 16,569,218 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#688
of 2,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,793
of 156,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,569,218 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,393 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 156,988 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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 68% of its contemporaries.