↓ Skip to main content

A Brazilian randomized study: Robotic-Assisted vs. Video-assisted lung lobectomy Outcomes (BRAVO trial)

Overview of attention for article published in Jornal de Pneumologia, August 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
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.
Title
A Brazilian randomized study: Robotic-Assisted vs. Video-assisted lung lobectomy Outcomes (BRAVO trial)
Published in
Jornal de Pneumologia, August 2022
DOI 10.36416/1806-3756/e20210464
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ricardo Mingarini Terra, Pedro Henrique Xavier Nabuco de Araujo, Leticia Leone Lauricella, Jose Ribas Milanese de Campos, Juliana Rocha Mol Trindade, Paulo Manuel Pêgo-Fernandes

Abstract

To compare 90-day morbidity in patients undergoing lung lobectomy performed by either robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) or video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS). Intraoperative complications, drainage time, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, postoperative quality of life, and readmissions within 90 days were also compared. This was a two-arm randomized clinical trial including patients with lung lesions (primary lung cancer or lung metastasis) who were candidates for lung lobectomy. Patients with comorbidities that precluded surgical treatment were excluded. All patients followed the same postoperative protocol. The overall sample comprised 76 patients (39 in the VATS group and 37 in the RATS group). The two groups were similar regarding gender, age, BMI, FEV1 in % of predicted, and comorbidities. Postoperative complications within 90 days tended to be more common in the VATS group than in the RATS group, but the difference was not significant (p = 0.12). However, when only major complications were analyzed, this tendency disappeared (p = 0.58). Regarding postoperative outcomes, the VATS group had a significantly higher number of readmissions within 90 days than did the RATS group (p = 0.029). No significant differences were found regarding intraoperative complications, drainage time, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, and postoperative quality of life. RATS and VATS lobectomy had similar 90-day outcomes. However, RATS lobectomy was associated with a significant reduction in the 90-day hospital readmission rate. Larger studies are necessary to confirm such a finding.(ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02292914 [http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/]).

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 14%
Student > Master 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 3%
Researcher 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 19 66%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Engineering 1 3%
Unknown 20 69%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 July 2022.
All research outputs
#20,015,055
of 25,462,162 outputs
Outputs from Jornal de Pneumologia
#447
of 719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#300,709
of 430,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Jornal de Pneumologia
#7
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,462,162 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 719 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 430,138 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 50% of its contemporaries.