↓ Skip to main content

Modified Single-Patch Technique Versus Two-Patch Technique for the Repair of Complete Atrioventricular Septal Defect: A Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Cardiology, July 2017
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 (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Modified Single-Patch Technique Versus Two-Patch Technique for the Repair of Complete Atrioventricular Septal Defect: A Meta-Analysis
Published in
Pediatric Cardiology, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00246-017-1684-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dongxu Li, Qiang Fan, Tomoyuki Iwase, Yasutaka Hirata, Qi An

Abstract

Technical selection for surgical repair of complete atrioventricular septal defect (CAVSD) still remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the modified single-patch (MP) technique with the two-patch (TP) technique for patients with CAVSD. Relevant studies comparing the MP technique with the TP technique were identified through a literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases. The variables were ventricular septal defect (VSD) size, cardiopulmonary bypass (CBP) time, aortic cross-clamp (ACC) time, intensive care unit stay, hospital stay, and other outcomes involving mortality, left ventricular outflow tract obstruction, atrioventricular valve regurgitation, residual septal shunt, atrioventricular block, and reoperation. A random-effect/fixed-effect model was used to summarize the estimates of mean difference/odds ratio with 95% confidence interval. Subgroup analysis stratified by region was performed. Fifteen publications involving 1034 patients were included. This meta-analysis demonstrated that (1) VSD size in the MP group was significantly smaller; (2) CBP time, ACC time, and hospital stay in the MP group experienced improvement; (3) Other postoperative outcomes showed no significant differences between two groups; and (4) The trends in China and other countries were close. The MP and TP techniques had comparable outcomes; however, the MP technique was performed with significantly shorter CBP and ACC times in patients with smaller VSDs. Given this limitation of data, the results of comparison of the two techniques in patients with larger VSDs remain unknown. Further studies are needed.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 26%
Student > Master 5 16%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 61%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 26%
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 20 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,355,715
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Cardiology
#580
of 1,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,187
of 312,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Cardiology
#10
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,413 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 312,216 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 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 74% of its contemporaries.