↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Treatment-related severe and fatal adverse events with molecular targeted agents in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Treatment-related severe and fatal adverse events with molecular targeted agents in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer: a meta-analysis
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, April 2017
DOI 10.2147/ott.s110431
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liang Wang, Yagang Liu, Wenyong Zhou, Wei Li

Abstract

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the incidence and risk of severe adverse events (AEs) with molecular targeted agents (MTAs) in advanced/metastatic gastric cancer (GC) patients. A comprehensive literature search for related trials published up to December 2015 was performed. Eligible studies were Phase III RCTs of advanced/metastatic GC patients assigned to MTAs or control group. Data were extracted by two authors for severe and fatal AEs (FAEs). A total of nine Phase III RCTs involved 4,934 GC patients were ultimately identified. The pooled results demonstrated that the addition of TAs to therapies in advanced GC significantly increased the risk of developing severe AEs (relative risk: 1.12, 95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.24, P=0.02), but not for FAEs (relative risk: 0.97, 95% confidence interval: 0.65-1.45, P=0.88). Additionally, the most common causes of FAEs with MTAs were infections (16.3%), gastrointestinal hemorrhage (8.2%), and arterial thromboembolic events (8.2%), respectively. With available evidence, the use of TAs in GC patients was associated with an increased risk of severe AEs, but not for FAE. Clinicians should be aware of the risk of severe AEs with the administration of these drugs in these patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 21%
Student > Master 2 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 14%
Other 1 7%
Lecturer 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 3 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 29%
Sports and Recreations 2 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 4 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 12 June 2017.
All research outputs
#16,725,651
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#984
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,796
of 323,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#33
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 323,961 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 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 53% of its contemporaries.