↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Critical appraisal of the role of ruxolitinib in myeloproliferative neoplasm-associated myelofibrosis

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

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Critical appraisal of the role of ruxolitinib in myeloproliferative neoplasm-associated myelofibrosis
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, May 2015
DOI 10.2147/ott.s31916
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giovanni Barosi, Vittorio Rosti, Robert Peter Gale

Abstract

The recent approval of molecular-targeted therapies for myeloproliferative neoplasm-associated myelofibrosis (MPN-MF) has dramatically changed its therapeutic landscape. Ruxolitinib, a JAK1/JAK2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is now widely used for first- and second-line therapy in persons with MPN-MF, especially those with disease-related splenomegaly, intermediate- or high-risk disease, and constitutional symptoms. The goal of this work is to critically analyze data supporting use of ruxolitinib in the clinical settings approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA). We systematically reviewed the literature and analyzed the risk of biases in the two randomized studies (COMFORT I and COMFORT II) on which FDA and EMA approval was based. Our strategy was to apply the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach by evaluating five dimensions of evidence: (1) overall risk of bias, (2) imprecision, (3) inconsistency, (4) indirectness, and (5) publication bias. Based on these criteria, we downgraded the evidence from the COMFORT I and COMFORT II trials for performance, attrition, and publication bias. In the disease-associated splenomegaly sphere, we upgraded the quality of evidence because of large effect size but downgraded it because of comparator choice and outcome indirectness (quality of evidence, low). In the sphere of treating persons with intermediate- or high-risk disease, we downgraded the evidence because of imprecision in effect size measurement and population indirectness. In the sphere of disease-associated symptoms, we upgraded the evidence because of the large effect size, but downgraded it because of comparator indirectness (quality of evidence, moderate). In conclusion, using the GRADE technique, we identified factors affecting the quality of evidence that were otherwise unstated. Identifying and evaluating these factors should influence the confidence with which physicians use ruxolitinib in persons with MPN-MF.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 5%
Peru 1 5%
Unknown 20 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 23%
Student > Master 5 23%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Other 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 36%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 8 36%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 June 2015.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#2,078
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,364
of 278,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#34
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 3,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. 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 278,920 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 49 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.