↓ Skip to main content

A Population-Based Cost Analysis of Thoracoscopic Versus Open Lobectomy in Primary Lung Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgical Oncology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
A Population-Based Cost Analysis of Thoracoscopic Versus Open Lobectomy in Primary Lung Cancer
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology, February 2016
DOI 10.1245/s10434-016-5125-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bing-Yen Wang, Jing-Yang Huang, Jiunn-Liang Ko, Ching-Hsiung Lin, Yao-Hong Zhou, Chang-Lun Huang, Yung-Po Liaw

Abstract

Thoracoscopic lobectomy for primary lung cancer has become increasingly popular worldwide due to several advantages over open lobectomy including reduced pain, reduced length of hospital stay, and comparable oncologic outcomes. The costs of thoracoscopic versus conventional open lobectomy have been compared in several studies with variable results. We compared the costs of thoracoscopic versus open lobectomy in lung cancer patients in Taiwan. Patients who underwent lobectomy for primary lung cancer from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) between 2004 and 2010 were identified. Patient characteristics, operative data, and costs for each part of the hospitalization for surgery and 30 days of care after discharge were analyzed. A total of 5366 patients with complete clinical data who underwent either conventional open lobectomy (n = 3166, 59 %) or thoracoscopic lobectomy (n = 2200, 41 %) for primary lung cancer were identified from the database. Compared with open lobectomy, thoracoscopic lobectomy was associated with younger age, less comorbidity, shorter anesthesia times, and reduced lengths of hospital stay. Total hospital costs, operative costs, and other costs were significantly higher in the thoracoscopic group. The 30-day after discharge costs were significantly lower in the thoracoscopic group. Thoracoscopic lobectomy for primary lung cancer in Taiwan was associated with higher total hospital costs but lower 30 days after discharge costs than open lobectomy. These differences may have resulted from higher operative and instrument costs in the thoracoscopic group.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 17%
Unspecified 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Other 8 27%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 17%
Unspecified 3 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 8 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 March 2016.
All research outputs
#13,203,513
of 23,373,475 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#3,658
of 6,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,980
of 399,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#43
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,373,475 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,621 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 399,719 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 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 60% of its contemporaries.