↓ Skip to main content

Inequalities in Implementation and Different Outcomes During the Growth of Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery in England: A National Population‐Based Study from 2002 to 2012

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgery, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Inequalities in Implementation and Different Outcomes During the Growth of Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery in England: A National Population‐Based Study from 2002 to 2012
Published in
World Journal of Surgery, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00268-018-4615-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

B. E. Byrne, C. A. Vincent, O. D. Faiz

Abstract

Laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery has developed from unproven technique to mainstay of treatment. This study examined the application and relative outcomes of laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer surgery over time, as laparoscopic uptake and experience have grown. Adults undergoing elective laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer surgery in the English NHS during 2002-2012 were included. Age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index and Index of Multiple Deprivation were compared over time. Post-operative 30-day mortality, length of stay, failure to rescue reoperation and the associated mortality rate were examined. Laparoscopy rates rose from 1.1 to 50.8%. Patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery had lower comorbidity by 0.24 points (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.20-0.27) and lower socioeconomic deprivation by 0.16 deciles (95% CI 0.12-0.20) than those having open procedures. Overall mortality fell by 48.0% from 2002-2003 to 2011-2002 and was 37.8% lower after laparoscopic surgery. Length of stay and mortality after surgical re-intervention also fell. However, re-intervention rates were higher after laparoscopic procedures by 7.8% (95% CI 0.9-15.2%). There was clear and persistent inequality in the application of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery during this study. Further work must explore and remedy inequalities to maximise patient benefit. Higher re-intervention rates after laparoscopy are unexplained and differ from randomized controlled trials. This may reflect differences in surgeons and practice between research and usual care settings and should be further investigated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 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 > Master 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Other 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 9 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 35%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 11 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 29 May 2018.
All research outputs
#6,667,304
of 24,615,420 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#1,176
of 4,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,278
of 334,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#22
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,615,420 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,497 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 334,013 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 67% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.