↓ Skip to main content

Outcomes Following Complete Surgical Metastasectomy for Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Urology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge
58

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
twitter
15 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Outcomes Following Complete Surgical Metastasectomy for Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Published in
The Journal of Urology, January 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2016.07.079
Pubmed ID
Authors

Harras B. Zaid, William P. Parker, Nida S. Safdar, Boris Gershman, Patricia J. Erwin, M. Hassan Murad, Stephen A. Boorjian, Brian A. Costello, R. Houston Thompson, Bradley C. Leibovich

Abstract

The benefit of complete surgical metastasectomy (CM) for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) remains controversial due to limited outcome data. Here, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether CM confers a survival benefit compared to incomplete or no metastasectomy (no-CM) for patients with mRCC. Ovid Embase, Medline, and Cochrane as well as Scopus databases were searched for studies evaluating CM in mRCC through 1/19/2016. Only comparative studies reporting adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for all-cause mortality of no-CM versus CM were included. Generic inverse variance with random effects models were used to determine the pooled aHR. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Eight published cohort studies at low or moderate potential for bias were included in the final analysis. The studies reported on a total of 2267 patients (958 undergoing CM, and 1309 no-CM). Median overall survival ranged between 36.5-142 months for those undergoing CM, compared to 8.4-27 months for no-CM. CM was associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality compared with no-CM (pooled aHR 2.37; 95% CI 2.03-2.87; P<0.001), with low heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%). CM remained independently associated with reduction in mortality across a priori subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and whether or not performance status was adjusted for. CM for mRCC is associated with improved survival compared with no-CM based on meta-analysis of observational data. Consideration should be given to perform CM in patients with mRCC who are surgical candidates when technically feasible.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Master 3 8%
Professor 3 8%
Other 10 28%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 58%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Engineering 2 6%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 6 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 24 June 2020.
All research outputs
#376,702
of 15,513,754 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Urology
#179
of 14,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,923
of 266,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Urology
#12
of 393 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,513,754 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,080 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 266,232 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 393 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.