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 |
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 | |
| Authors |
Ke Chen, Yu Pan, Bin Zhang, Hendi Maher, Xian-fa Wang, Xiu-jun Cai |
| Abstract |
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. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 71 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 15% |
| Researcher | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 20 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 54% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 1% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 26 | 37% |
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
#13,567,909
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from BMC Surgery
#227
of 1,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,382
of 317,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Surgery
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,332 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. 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 317,238 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 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.