↓ Skip to main content

Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, November 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 (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer
Published in
BMC Cancer, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12885-015-1818-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yan-zhou Wang, Li Deng, Hui-cheng Xu, Yao Zhang, Zhi-qing Liang

Abstract

The possible advantages of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) versus open radical hysterectomy (RH) have not been well reviewed systematically. The aim of this study was to systematically review the comparative effectiveness between LRH and RH in the treatment of cervical cancer based on the evaluation of the Perioperative outcomes, oncological clearance, complications and long-term outcomes. The systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and BIOSIS databases. All original studies that compared LRH with RH were included for critical appraisal. Data were pooled and analyzed. A total of twelve original studies that compared LRH (n = 754) with RH (n = 785) in patients with cervical cancer fulfilled quality criteria were selected for review and meta-analysis. LRH compared with RH was associated with a significant reduction of intraoperative blood loss (weighted mean difference = -268.4 mL (95 % CI -361.6, -175.1; p < 0.01), a reduced risk of postoperative complications (OR = 0.46; 95 % CI 0.34-0.63) and shorter hospital stay (weighted mean difference = -3.22 days; 95 % CI-4.21, -2.23 days; p < 0.01). These benefits were at the cost of longer operative time (weighted mean difference = 26.9 min (95 % CI 8.08-45.82). The rate of intraoperative complications was similar in the two groups. Lymph nodes yield and positive resection margins were similar between the two groups. There were no significant differences in 5-year overall survival (HR 0.91, 95 % CI 0.48-1.71; p = 0.76) and 5-year disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97, 95 % CI 0.56-1.68; p = 0.91). LRH shows better short term outcomes compared with RH in patients with cervical cancer. The oncologic outcome and 5-year survival were similar between the two groups.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 11 14%
Other 11 14%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Other 18 24%
Unknown 15 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 61%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Engineering 1 1%
Unknown 22 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 24 November 2018.
All research outputs
#2,290,803
of 13,910,193 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#577
of 5,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,423
of 359,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#80
of 759 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,910,193 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,313 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 359,086 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 759 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.