↓ Skip to main content

Current status of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer: A literature review to highlight studies limits

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Surgery, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
51 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.
Article details
Title
Current status of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer: A literature review to highlight studies limits
Published in
International Journal of Surgery, March 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.02.021
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Gastric cancer represents a great challenge for health care providers and requires a multidisciplinary approach in which surgery plays the main role. Minimally invasive surgery has been progressively developed, first with the advent of laparoscopy and more recently with the spread of robotic surgery, but a number of issues are currently being investigate, including the limitations in performing effective extended lymph node dissections and, in this context, the real advantages of using robotic systems, the possible role for advanced Gastric Cancer, the reproducibility of completely intracorporeal techniques and the oncological results achievable during follow-up.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 50 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 16%
Other 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 12%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Engineering 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 14 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 March 2015.
All research outputs
#15,880,512
of 25,925,760 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Surgery
#1,079
of 2,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,841
of 275,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Surgery
#17
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,861 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 275,079 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.