↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

A meta-analysis of clinical trials assessing the effect of radiofrequency ablation for breast cancer

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
A meta-analysis of clinical trials assessing the effect of radiofrequency ablation for breast cancer
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, March 2016
DOI 10.2147/ott.s97828
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jiayan Chen, Chi Zhang, Fei Li, Liping Xu, Hongcheng Zhu, Shui Wang, Xiaoan Liu, Xiaoming Zha, Qiang Ding, Lijun Ling, Wenbin Zhou, Xinchen Sun

Abstract

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a minimally invasive thermal ablation technique. We conducted a meta-analysis based on eligible studies to assess the efficacy and safety of RFA for treating patients with breast cancer. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Eligible studies were clinical trials that assessed RFA in patients with breast cancer. The outcomes included complete ablation rate, recurrence rate, excellent or good cosmetic rates, and complication rate. A random-effects or fixed-effects model was used to pool the estimate, according to the heterogeneity among the included studies. Fifteen studies, with a total of 404 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled results showed that 89% (95% confidence interval: 85%-93%) of patients achieved a complete ablation after RFA treatment and 96% of patients reported a good-to-excellent cosmetic result. Although the pooled result for recurrence rate was 0, several cases of relapse were observed at different follow-up times. No RFA-related complications were recorded, except for skin burn with an incidence of 4% (95% confidence interval: 1%-6%). This meta-analysis showed that RFA can be a promising alternative option for treating breast cancer since it produces a higher complete ablation rate with a low complication rate. Further well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of RFA for breast cancer.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 8 29%
Unknown 7 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 29%
Engineering 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 8 29%
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 04 April 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#1,146
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,490
of 312,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#43
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 52% 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 312,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.