↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Residual disease and risk factors in patients with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and positive margins after initial conization

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Residual disease and risk factors in patients with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and positive margins after initial conization
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, May 2015
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s81802
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yunfeng Fu, Xiaodong Cheng, Xinyu Wang, Xing Xie, Weiguo Lü, Chen, Suwen Feng

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the clinicopathologic predictors of residual disease in patients with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and margin involvement after initial conization. Data from 145 patients who underwent subsequent surgery for high-grade CIN with positive margins were retrospectively analyzed. After subsequent surgery, residual disease was diagnosed in 47 (34.2%) patients, of whom five had invasive cervical carcinoma, 31 had CIN 3, nine had CIN 2, and two had CIN 1. Multivariate analysis revealed that only age ≥35 years (P=0.033), major abnormal cytology (P=0.002), and pre-cone high-risk human papillomavirus load ≥300 relative light units (P=0.011) were significant factors associated with residual disease. Age ≥35 years, major abnormal cytology, and pre-cone high-risk human papillomavirus load ≥300 relative light units were the only significant factors predicting post-cone residual disease. Appropriate application of these predictive factors may avoid delayed treatment and overtreatment.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 12 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 42%
Sports and Recreations 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Unknown 12 50%

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 22 May 2015.
All research outputs
#18,410,971
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#1,014
of 1,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,628
of 264,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#36
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 264,341 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.