| Title |
Pretreatment platelet count as a prognostic factor in patients with pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s147715 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sheng Chen, Ning Na, Zhixiang Jian |
| Abstract |
The relationship between platelet counts and pancreatic cancer as a prognostic factor has been reported in many studies. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of platelet counts in predicting the prognosis of pancreatic cancer patients. We searched PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and Google Scholar for eligible studies up to May 2017. Information about the characteristics of the study and relevant outcomes was extracted. A meta-analysis was performed to analyze the prognostic value of platelet counts using the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 1,756 patients in 13 retrospective studies were included. The pooled HR of 1.51 (95% CI: 1.20-1.90, P<0.001) showed that patients with elevated platelet counts were expected to have poor overall survival after treatment. Subgroup analysis showed that prognostic value of platelet levels was stronger in patients who received surgical resection (HR =1.60, 95% CI: 1.09-2.34, P=0.02), followed by patients who received palliative therapy (HR =1.46, 95% CI: 1.03-2.06, P=0.03). Platelet counts could be a useful prognostic marker for pancreatic cancer. Patients with high platelet counts are expected to have poor survival. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 18% |
| Researcher | 3 | 18% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 12% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Unknown | 1 | 6% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 47% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 12% |
| Psychology | 1 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,789,745
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#739
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,029
of 444,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#13
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 444,941 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.