| Title |
Effectiveness of intervention with a perioperative multidisciplinary support team for radical esophagectomy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-017-3801-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yuji Akiyama, Takeshi Iwaya, Fumitaka Endo, Yoshihiro Shioi, Motoi Kumagai, Takeshi Takahara, Koki Otsuka, Hiroyuki Nitta, Keisuke Koeda, Masaru Mizuno, Yusuke Kimura, Kenji Suzuki, Akira Sasaki |
| Abstract |
We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of intervention by a perioperative multidisciplinary support team for radical esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. We retrospectively reviewed 85 consecutive patients with esophageal cancer who underwent radical esophagectomy via right thoracotomy or thoracoscopic surgery with gastric tube reconstruction. Twenty-one patients were enrolled in the non-intervention group (group N) from May 2011 to September 2012, 31 patients in the perioperative rehabilitation group (group R) from October 2012 to April 2014, and 33 patients in the multidisciplinary support team group (group S) from May 2014 to September 2015. Morbidity rates were 38, 45.2, and 42.4% for groups N, R, and S, respectively. Although there were no significant differences in the incidence of pneumonia among the groups, the durations of fever and C-reactive protein positivity were shorter in group S. Moreover, postoperative oral intake commenced earlier [5.9 (5-8) days] and postoperative hospital stay was shorter [19.6 (13-29) days] for group S. The intervention by a perioperative multidisciplinary support team for radical esophagectomy was effective in preventing the progression and prolongation of pneumonia as well as earlier ambulation, oral feeding, and shortening of postoperative hospitalization. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 15 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 19% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 17 | 33% |
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 01 February 2018.
All research outputs
#15,483,707
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#3,146
of 4,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,674
of 315,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#52
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,641 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 315,499 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.