↓ Skip to main content

Robotic versus laparoscopic Gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Surgery, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

3 tweeters


43 Dimensions

Readers on

36 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.
Robotic versus laparoscopic Gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Surgery, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12893-017-0290-2
Pubmed ID

Ke Chen, Yu Pan, Bin Zhang, Hendi Maher, Xian-fa Wang, Xiu-jun Cai


Advanced minimally invasive techniques including robotic surgery are being employed with increasing frequency around the world, primarily in order to improve the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the feasibility, safety and efficacy of robotic gastrectomy (RG). Studies, which compared surgical outcomes between LG and RG, were retrieved from medical databases before May 2017. Outcomes of interest were estimated as weighted mean difference (WMD) or risk ratio (RR) using the random-effects model. The software Review Manage version 5.1 was used for all calculations. Nineteen comparative studies with 5953 patients were included in this analysis. Compared with LG, RG was associated with longer operation time (WMD = -49.05 min; 95% CI: -58.18 ~ -39.91, P < 0.01), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = 24.38 ml; 95% CI: 12.32 ~ 36.43, P < 0.01), earlier time to oral intake (WMD = 0.23 days; 95% CI: 0.13 ~ 0.34, P < 0.01), and a higher expense (WMD = -3944.8 USD; 95% CI: -4943.5 ~ -2946.2, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between RG and LG regarding time to flatus, hospitalization, morbidity, mortality, harvested lymph nodes, and cancer recurrence. RG can be performed as safely as LG. However, it will take more effort to decrease operation time and expense.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 9 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 64%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Unknown 12 33%

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 31 August 2017.
All research outputs
of 15,984,915 outputs
Outputs from BMC Surgery
of 764 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 274,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Surgery
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,984,915 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 764 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 274,224 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 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them