↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Indirect treatment comparison of bevacizumab + interferon-α-2a vs tyrosine kinase inhibitors in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma therapy.

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Indirect treatment comparison of bevacizumab + interferon-α-2a vs tyrosine kinase inhibitors in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma therapy.
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, September 2011
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s16118
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mickisch GH, Schwander B, Escudier B, Bellmunt J, Maroto JP, Porta C, Walzer S, Siebert U

Abstract

The vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor bevacizumab (BEV) given in combination with interferon-α-2a (IFN), and the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) sunitinib (SUN) and pazopanib (PAZ), have all shown significant increase in progression-free survival (PFS) in first-line metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) therapy. These targeted therapies are currently competing to be primary choice; hence, in the absence of direct head-to-head comparison, there is a need for valid indirect comparison assessment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 27 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 21%
Student > Master 4 14%
Lecturer 3 10%
Professor 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 52%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Unknown 8 28%

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 22 September 2011.
All research outputs
#4,206,855
of 5,038,248 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#159
of 178 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,234
of 77,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#11
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,038,248 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 178 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 77,702 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.