↓ Skip to main content

Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for the treatment of solid abdominal and thoracic neoplasms in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for the treatment of solid abdominal and thoracic neoplasms in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008403.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elvira C van Dalen, Manou S de Lijster, Lieve GJ Leijssen, Erna MC Michiels, Leontien CM Kremer, Huib N Caron, Daniel C Aronson

Abstract

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is an accepted surgical technique for the treatment of a variety of benign diseases. Presently, the use of MIS in patients with cancer is progressing. However, the role of MIS in children with solid neoplasms is less clear than it is in adults. Although the use of diagnostic MIS to obtain biopsy specimens for pathology is accepted in paediatric surgical oncology, there is limited evidence to support the use of MIS for the resection of malignancies. This review is the second update of a previously published Cochrane review.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 21%
Student > Master 7 18%
Unspecified 6 15%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Other 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 54%
Unspecified 11 28%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 8%
Psychology 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 26 October 2016.
All research outputs
#970,163
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,948
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,580
of 285,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#94
of 248 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 285,063 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 248 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 62% of its contemporaries.