↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Impact of the care provided by gynecologic oncologists on outcomes of cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomy

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
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Impact of the care provided by gynecologic oncologists on outcomes of cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomy
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, March 2016
DOI 10.2147/ott.s99874
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miao-fang Wu, Jing Li, Huai-wu Lu, Li-juan Wang, Bing-zhong Zhang, Zhong-qiu Lin

Abstract

For many malignant diseases, specialized care has been reported to be associated with better outcomes. The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of gynecologic oncologists on treatment outcomes for cervical cancer patients treated by radical hysterectomy. Records of patients who received radical hysterectomy between January 2005 and June 2010 were reviewed. Perioperative morbidity, recurrence-free survival, and cancer-specific survival were assessed. Cox regression model was used to evaluate gynecologic oncologists as an independent predictor of survival. A total of 839 patients were included. Of these patients, 553 were treated by gynecologic oncologists, while 286 were treated by other subspecialties. With regard to operative outcomes, significant differences in favor of operation by gynecologic oncologists were found in number of patients receiving para-aortic node sampling and dissection (P=0.038), compliance with surgical guidelines (P=0.003), operative time (P<0.0001), estimated blood loss (P<0.0001), transfusion rate (P=0.046), number of removed nodes (P=0.033), and incidences of ureteric injury (P=0.027), cystotomy (P=0.038), and fistula formation (P=0.002). Patients who were operated on by gynecologic oncologists had longer recurrence-free survival (P=0.001; hazard ratio [HR] =0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.48, 0.84]) and cancer-specific survival (P=0.005; HR=0.64; 95% CI [0.47, 0.87]), and this association remained significant in patients with locally advanced disease. Care by gynecologic oncologists was an independent predictor for improved recurrence-free survival (P<0.0001; HR=0.57; 95% CI [0.42, 0.76]) and cancer-specific survival (P=0.001; HR=0.58; 95% CI [0.42, 0.81]), which was still significant among patients with locally advanced cancer. Given the results, we believe for cervical cancer patients receiving radical hysterectomy, operation by gynecologic oncologists results in significantly improved surgical and survival outcomes. The importance of the subspecialty of a gynecologist for cervical cancer patients should be addressed in clinical practice, especially for those in developing countries.

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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 25%
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 6 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Materials Science 1 4%
Unknown 9 38%
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 12 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,740,505
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#836
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,461
of 312,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#33
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 312,601 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 69% of its contemporaries.