↓ Skip to main content

Anaesthetic techniques for risk of malignant tumour recurrence

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
207 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
Anaesthetic techniques for risk of malignant tumour recurrence
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008877.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ozlem S Cakmakkaya, Kerstin Kolodzie, Christian C Apfel, Nathan Leon Pace

Abstract

Surgery remains a mainstay of treatment for malignant tumours; however, surgical manipulation leads to a significant systemic release of tumour cells. Whether these cells lead to metastases is largely dependent on the balance between aggressiveness of the tumour cells and resilience of the body. Surgical stress per se, anaesthetic agents and administration of opioid analgesics perioperatively can compromise immune function and might shift the balance towards progression of minimal residual disease. Regional anaesthesia techniques provide perioperative pain relief; they therefore reduce the quantity of systemic opioids and of anaesthetic agents used. Additionally, regional anaesthesia techniques are known to prevent or attenuate the surgical stress response. In recent years, the potential benefit of regional anaesthesia techniques for tumour recurrence has received major attention and has been discussed many times in the literature. In preparing this review, we aimed to summarize the current evidence systematically and comprehensively.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 201 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 18%
Researcher 32 15%
Student > Bachelor 23 11%
Other 17 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 8%
Other 49 24%
Unknown 32 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 109 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 7%
Psychology 10 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Social Sciences 5 2%
Other 24 12%
Unknown 37 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 04 February 2020.
All research outputs
#3,721,007
of 15,569,652 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,155
of 11,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,484
of 235,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#160
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,569,652 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,217 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.3. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 235,296 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.