| Title |
Comparison of efficacy and toxicity between nedaplatin and cisplatin in treating malignant pleural effusion
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s168391 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Li-Zhe Zhong, Hong-Yan Xu, Zhong-Min Zhao, Guang-Mei Zhang, Feng-Wu Lin |
| Abstract |
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of nedaplatin versus cisplatin in treating malignant pleural effusion (MPE) caused by cancers. The clinical data of 219 MPE patients treated from January 2013 to December 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Intrapleural infusion with nedaplatin 80 mg/m2 (n=110) or with cisplatin 40 mg/m2 (n=109) were used as the treatment. There was no significant difference in the overall response rate between the nedaplatin group (62.73%) and the cisplatin group (54.13%) (P=0.154). The nedaplatin group had significantly lower rates of gastrointestinal side effects and significantly less incidence of increased serum creatinine levels in comparison with the cisplatin group. The overall rate of toxicity in the nedaplatin group (40.00%) was significantly lower than in the cisplatin group (78.90%) (P⩽0.001). The efficacy of pleural perfusion with nedaplatin is noninferior to cisplatin in treating malignancy-induced MPE. Nedaplatin is associated with less toxicity in comparison with cisplatin. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 27% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 2 | 18% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 21 September 2018.
All research outputs
#4,867,795
of 25,498,750 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#220
of 3,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,113
of 346,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#11
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,498,750 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,021 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 346,028 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.