↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The surgical perspective in precision treatment of diffuse gliomas

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, February 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
The surgical perspective in precision treatment of diffuse gliomas
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, February 2019
DOI 10.2147/ott.s174316
Pubmed ID
Authors

Niklas Thon, Joerg-Christian Tonn, Friedrich-Wilhelm Kreth

Abstract

Over the last decade, advances in molecular and imaging-based biomarkers have induced a more versatile diagnostic classification and prognostic evaluation of glioma patients. This, in combination with a growing therapeutic armamentarium, enables increasingly individualized, risk-benefit-optimized treatment strategies. This path to precision medicine in glioma patients requires surgical procedures to be reassessed within multidimensional management considerations. This article attempts to integrate the surgical intervention into a dynamic network of versatile diagnostic characterization, prognostic assessment, and multimodal treatment options in the light of the latest 2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classification of diffuse brain tumors, WHO grade II, III, and IV. Special focus is set on surgical aspects such as resectability, extent of resection, and targeted surgical strategies including minimal invasive stereotactic biopsy procedures, convection enhanced delivery, and photodynamic therapy. Moreover, the influence of recent advances in radiomics/radiogenimics on the process of surgical decision-making will be touched.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 12 26%
Unknown 11 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 11%
Neuroscience 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 13 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 March 2019.
All research outputs
#15,992,387
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#885
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,254
of 447,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#19
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 447,265 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.