| 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, January 2011
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ceor.s16118 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gerald HJ Mickisch, Björn Schwander, Bernard Escudier, Joaquim Bellmunt, José P Maroto, Camillo Porta, Stefan Walzer, Uwe Siebert |
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 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 | 30 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 22% |
| Unknown | 8 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 47% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 January 2012.
All research outputs
#8,296,727
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#193
of 525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,476
of 190,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 190,912 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.