↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Ocular melanoma-when you have seen one, you have not seen them all: a clinical outcome study from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (1973–2012)

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Ocular melanoma-when you have seen one, you have not seen them all: a clinical outcome study from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (1973–2012)
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, January 2017
DOI 10.2147/opth.s120530
Pubmed ID
Authors

Krishnaraj Mahendraraj, Sneha Shrestha, Christine SM Lau, Ronald S Chamberlain

Abstract

Ocular melanoma (OM) comprises <5% of all melanomas. Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most common subtype of OM, while conjunctival melanoma (CM) is rare and differs significantly from UM. The purpose of this study is to evaluate a large cohort of OM patients to differentiate demographic, pathologic, and clinical factors between these two neoplasms, which may affect treatment and outcomes. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (1973-2012) was used to extract demographic and clinical data on 8,165 OM patients (92.1% UM and 7.9% CM). Both CM and UM were most prevalent among Caucasian males in the seventh decade of life. UM patients presented more often with localized disease (90.9% vs 81.2, P<0.01). Surgery (42.8%), radiation (43.0%), or combined surgery and radiation (7.0%) were used in the treatment of UM, while CM was treated almost exclusively with surgery (88.7%). Mean overall survival was longer (15.4 vs 14.6 years; P<0.01) and mortality rates were lower in patients (38.8% vs 46.1%; P<0.01) with CM. Despite presenting with more advanced disease than UM, CM is associated with an increased overall survival. Surgery is the primary therapy for CM, whereas radiotherapy is the primary therapy for UM and is associated with prolonged survival.

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 %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 17%
Other 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 6 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Unspecified 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 8 27%

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 06 January 2017.
All research outputs
#11,106,131
of 12,488,808 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,434
of 1,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#295,574
of 359,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#40
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,488,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,597 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 359,233 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.