| Title |
Predictive significance of preoperative CT findings for suboptimal cytoreduction in advanced ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Management and Research, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cmar.s166658 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ting Wen Yi Hu, Dan Nie, Jin Hai Gou, Zheng Yu Li |
| Abstract |
Computed tomography (CT) has been extensively used in predicting suboptimal cytoreduction (SCR) in advanced ovarian cancer (OC). However, disagreements remain in literatures on the predictive value of CT findings for SCR. This meta-analysis was designed to determine the ability of eight preoperative CT findings to predict SCR in advanced OC. A comprehensive literature search was conducted for eligible studies to identify the association between the eight preoperative CT findings and SCR in advanced OC. The predictive performances of preoperative CT findings were expressed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) with pooled proportion. A total of 10 studies and 1,614 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Large volume ascites had the highest sensitivity (64%, CI 56-71%), with a PLR of 1.3 (CI 1.1-1.5) and an NLR of 0.73 (0.59-0.90), while lymph node involvement had the highest specificity (89%, CI 79-94%). The highest DOR of 3 (CI 2-4) was achieved in peritoneal involvement and large bowel mesentery involvement. The other CT findings had poorer predictive performance. Preoperative CT findings have a poor discriminative capacity to predict SCR in advanced OC. Preoperative CT predictors should be used with caution amid clinical decision-making. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 15% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 65% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
| Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 4 | 20% |
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 25 July 2018.
All research outputs
#18,643,992
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Management and Research
#1,057
of 2,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,368
of 328,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Management and Research
#45
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 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 2,019 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 328,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.