↓ Skip to main content

Is minimally invasive esophagectomy effective for preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgical Oncology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Is minimally invasive esophagectomy effective for preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12957-015-0661-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Can Zhou, Gang Ma, Xiao Li, Juan Li, Yu Yan, Peijun Liu, Jianjun He, Yu Ren

Abstract

Compared with open esophagectomy (OE), minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) proves to have clear benefits in reducing the risk of pulmonary complications for patients with resectable esophageal cancer. The objectives of our study were to explore the superiority of MIE in reducing the occurrence of anastomotic leakages (ALs) when compared to OE. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the superiority of MIE on the occurrence of ALs over OE, by searching many sources (through December, 2014) such as Medline, Embase, Wiley Online Library, and Cochrane Library. Fixed-effects model was used to calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) to quantify associations between OE and MIE groups. Cochran's Q and I (2) statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity among studies. Among a total of 43 studies involving 5537 patients included in the meta-analysis, 2527 (45.6 %) cases underwent MIE and 3010 (54.4 %) cases underwent OE. Compared to patients undergoing OE, patients undergoing MIE did not have statistical significance in reduced occurrence of ALs (OR = 0.97, 95 % CI = 0.80-1.17). Insignificant reduced occurrence of ALs was not associated with anastomotic location (OR = 0.90, 95 % CI = 0.71-1.13) or anastomotic procedure (OR = 1.02, 95 % CI = 0.79-1.30). More proofs are needed to clarify the strengths or weaknesses of MIE in preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer. A largely randomized, controlled trial should be undertaken to resolve this contentious issue urgently.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 19%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 11 23%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Unspecified 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 10 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 June 2016.
All research outputs
#17,772,019
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#869
of 2,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,040
of 267,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#11
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,043 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 267,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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 52% of its contemporaries.