You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Margin Width of Resected Lepidic Lung Cancer Does Not Affect Recurrence After Sublobar Resection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Surgery, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00268-017-4291-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Youngkyu Moon, Kyo Young Lee, Jae Kil Park |
| Abstract |
A sufficient resection margin is required for the sublobar resection of lung cancers. However, the width of the resection margin may not be important in lepidic adenocarcinoma, because such tumors are non- or minimally invasive. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of resection margin width on the outcome of patients with lepidic-dominant adenocarcinoma after sublobar resection. This study included 133 patients with small (≤2 cm), clinical N0M0 lung cancer who underwent sublobar resection with curative intent. The patients were divided into 4 groups: Group A, lepidic tumor with margin/tumor ratio <1; Group B, lepidic tumor with margin/tumor ratio ≥1; Group C, non-lepidic tumor with margin/tumor ratio <1; Group D, non-lepidic tumor with margin/tumor ratio ≥1. The clinicopathological features and survival outcomes between Group A and B patients, and between Group C and D patients were compared. The 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates of Group A and B patients were both 100%. The 5-year RFS rates of Group C and D patients were 49.9 and 97.1%, respectively (p = 0.009). By multivariate analysis, the margin/tumor ratio was a significant independent factor for recurrence in patients with non-lepidic tumors (hazard ratio = 0.157, 95% confidence interval 0.027-0.898; p = 0.037). Tumor recurrence after sublobar resection is not associated with short resection margins in patients with lepidic tumors. However, a short resection margin is a significant risk factor for recurrence in patients with non-lepidic 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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 33% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 8% |
| Researcher | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 33% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 8% |
| Engineering | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
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 24 October 2017.
All research outputs
#17,918,662
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#3,375
of 4,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,991
of 326,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#83
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,259 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 326,544 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.