↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The role of Gliadel wafers in the treatment of newly diagnosed GBM: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Design, Development and Therapy, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 Mendeley
Title
The role of Gliadel wafers in the treatment of newly diagnosed GBM: a meta-analysis
Published in
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, June 2015
DOI 10.2147/dddt.s85943
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wei-kang Xing, Chuan Shao, Zhen-yu Qi, Chao Yang, Zhong Wang

Abstract

Standard treatment for high-grade glioma (HGG) includes surgery followed by radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. Insertion of carmustine wafers into the resection cavity as a treatment for malignant glioma is currently a controversial topic among neurosurgeons. Our meta-analysis focused on whether carmustine wafer treatment could significantly benefit the survival of patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). We searched the PubMed and Web of Science databases without any restrictions on language using the keywords "Gliadel wafers", "carmustine wafers", "BCNU wafers", or "interstitial chemotherapy" in newly diagnosed GBM for the period from January 1990 to March 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies/clinical trials that compared treatments designed with and without carmustine wafers and which reported overall survival or hazard ratio (HR) or survival curves were included in this study. Moreover, the statistical analysis was conducted by the STATA 12.0 software. Six studies including two RCTs and four cohort studies, enrolling a total of 513 patients (223 with and 290 without carmustine wafers), matched the selection criteria. Carmustine wafers showed a strong advantage when pooling all the included studies (HR =0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) =0.49-0.81; P=0.019). However, the two RCTs did not show a statistical increase in survival in the group with carmustine wafer compared to the group without it (HR =0.51, 95% CI =0.18-1.41; P=0.426), while the cohort studies demonstrated a significant survival increase (HR =0.59, 95% CI =0.44-0.79; P<0.0001). Carmustine-impregnated wafers play a significant role in improving survival when used for patients with newly diagnosed GBM. More studies should be designed for newly diagnosed GBM in the future.

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 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Unknown 132 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 20%
Researcher 17 13%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Student > Master 12 9%
Other 9 7%
Other 25 19%
Unknown 29 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 28%
Engineering 12 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 7%
Neuroscience 6 4%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 35 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 22 October 2021.
All research outputs
#1,605,351
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#69
of 2,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,015
of 281,494 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#3
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,270 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 281,494 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.