↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Prognostic value of IGF-1R expression in bone and soft tissue sarcomas: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Prognostic value of IGF-1R expression in bone and soft tissue sarcomas: a meta-analysis
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/ott.s88293
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhaoming Ye, Zhenghui Jiang, Binghao Li, Zhengxiang Huang

Abstract

Accumulated evidence has indicated a correlation between IGF-1R and bone and soft tissue sarcoma (BSTS) progression. However, research on the prognostic role of IGF-1R in sarcomas has revealed very different or even totally opposite results. This meta-analysis aimed to unveil the controversial role IGF-1R plays in predicting the outcome of BSTS patients. We systematically reviewed the evidence for the effect of IGF-1R expression in multiple types of BSTSs, including osteosarcoma, Ewing's sarcoma, synovial sarcoma, liposarcoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma, to elucidate this issue. The prognostic value of IGF-1R expression in BSTS patients was evaluated regarding overall survival, measured by pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Seven studies including 627 patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis. Our results demonstrated that IGF-1R expression was associated with poor outcome in terms of overall survival in BSTS patients (pooled HR =2.15, 95% CI: 1.06-4.38; P=0.03). In subtypes of BSTSs, elevated IGF-1R expression was revealed to be significantly correlated with worse prognosis in osteosarcoma (pooled HR =2.20, 95% CI: 1.59-0.03; P<0.001), while no statistical significance was discovered in Ewing's sarcoma (pooled HR =1.01, 95% CI: 0.45-2.27; P=0.99). Expression of IGF-1R could be a negative prognostic biomarker for patients suffering from BSTSs.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Czechia 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 3 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 16%
Researcher 3 16%
Student > Master 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 26%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 5%
Unknown 5 26%

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 31 July 2015.
All research outputs
#4,511,740
of 5,422,321 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#413
of 697 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,125
of 189,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#38
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,422,321 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 697 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 189,686 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.