| Title |
Incidental thyroid carcinoma in surgery-treated hyperthyroid patients with Graves’ disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Management and Research, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cmar.s164210 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Qingyi Jia, Xiaodan Li, Ying Liu, Ling Li, Joey SW Kwong, Kaiyun Ren, Yong Jiang, Xin Sun, Haoming Tian, Sheyu Li |
| Abstract |
The association between Graves' disease (GD) and thyroid carcinoma remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate incidental thyroid carcinoma (ITC) in surgery-treated hyperthyroid patients with and without GD. We searched PubMed and EMBASE for cohort studies investigating ITC in surgery-treated hyperthyroid patients without prediagnosed thyroid carcinoma in accordance with the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. The last search was updated to January 23, 2018. All statistical tests were performed using Review Manager 5.3 and STATA version 12.0. Eleven cohort studies involving 10,743 GD and 3,336 non-GD patients were included. The pooled prevalence of ITC was 7.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.5-9.6), and was comparable in surgery-treated GD and non-GD hyperthyroid patients (GD vs non-GD: pooled odds ratio [OR], 1.0; 95% CI: 0.68-1.46; P=0.98). In the subgroup analysis, toxic adenoma and toxic nodular goiter showed no difference when comparing with GD (pooled OR, 0.53; 95% CI: 0.21-1.36; P=0.18 and pooled OR, 1.01; 95% CI: 0.65-1.57; P=0.95, respectively). Our study demonstrated that GD was not associated with increased risk of ITC in surgery-treated hyperthyroid patients. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| China | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 13% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 23% |
| Unknown | 10 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 60% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 25% |
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 24 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,522,480
of 23,070,218 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Management and Research
#731
of 2,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,911
of 326,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Management and Research
#24
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,070,218 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,017 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 326,213 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 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 50% of its contemporaries.