| Title |
Comparison of the prognosis and recurrence of apparent early-stage ovarian tumors treated with laparoscopy and laparotomy: a meta-analysis of clinical studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cancer, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12885-015-1604-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ying Zhang, Shuying Fan, Yang Xiang, Hua Duan, Li Sun |
| Abstract |
This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the prognosis and recurrence of apparent early-stage ovarian tumors treated with laparoscopy compared with laparotomy. Clinical studies published in English were retrieved from the computerized databases Medline and Embase. A meta-analysis was performed to investigate the differences in the efficacy and safety of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in terms of postoperative complications, lengths of hospital stay, recurrence rates, and disease-free survival times using the random effects model. The studies were independently reviewed by two investigators. Data from the eligible studies were extracted, and the meta-analysis was performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis program, version 2 (CMA-2; Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA). A total of 8 studies were included in the analysis. The results showed that laparoscopic surgery was significantly associated with lower rates of complications (OR = 0.433, P = 0.019) and shorter postoperative hospital stays (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -0.974, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the rates of recurrence (OR = 0.707, P = 0.521) between patients with apparent early-stage ovarian tumors who were treated using laparoscopy and those who underwent laparotomy. No publication bias was detected. Laparoscopic surgery shows favorable prognostic outcomes in terms of postoperative complication rates and postoperative hospital stay durations. Further studies with longer follow-up periods are required to confirm recurrence and survival outcomes after laparoscopic surgery in patients with apparent early-stage ovarian tumors. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 28 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 28% |
| Unknown | 8 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 52% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 10 | 34% |
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 26 August 2015.
All research outputs
#15,695,859
of 23,323,574 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#4,217
of 8,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,710
of 268,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#71
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,323,574 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 8,445 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 268,629 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.