↓ Skip to main content

Reconsideration of frailty in relation to surgical indication

Overview of attention for article published in General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#17 of 427)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Reconsideration of frailty in relation to surgical indication
Published in
General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11748-017-0869-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kay Maeda, Yoshikatsu Saiki

Abstract

Given that an increasing number of elderly patients are undergoing surgical procedures for a diversity of indications, the concept of frailty is currently being examined in more depth in clinical medicine. Established surgical risk scores designed to predict mortality are mainly focused on general demographic information and clinical factors; however, these do not account for the frailty condition. With vulnerability and low resiliency in the frail elderly, these conventional scores are unable to accurately predict postoperative outcomes including adverse complications, disability, the need for additional rehabilitation, and prolonged length of hospitalization. Over the last decade, it has been demonstrated that frailty is an independent risk factor of surgery and strongly associated with adverse postoperative outcomes and mortality. It is essential today that surgeons assimilate the concept of frailty and the relationship between frailty and surgical outcomes. A preoperative frailty assessment can assist in determining surgical indication and optimal perioperative management, ultimately impacting the postoperative functional state and quality of life. Here we review the validity of preoperative frailty assessments for surgical intervention, possible treatments for frailty, and indicate future directions in this field.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Postgraduate 8 12%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 15 22%
Unknown 17 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Unspecified 1 1%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 20 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 28 November 2017.
All research outputs
#3,941,339
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
#17
of 427 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,689
of 438,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 427 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 438,098 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them