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 |
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of perioperative outcomes comparing robot-assisted versus open radical cystectomy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Urology, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12894-016-0177-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zhiyuan Shen, Zhongquan Sun |
| Abstract |
With the introduction of robotic surgery, whether the robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) could reduce the perioperative morbidity compared with Open radical cystectomy (ORC) was unknown. Studies reported RARC were reviewed based on all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which focused on the efficacy of RARC versus ORC. Of the 201 studies from preliminary screening, four RCTs were included. By pooling these studies, there were significant differences in comparison of operative time (p = 0.007), estimated blood loss (EBL) (p < 0.001) and time to diet (p < 0.001) between the RARC group and ORC groups. There was no significant difference regarding perioperative complications (Clavien 2-5, Clavien 3-5), length of stay (LOS), positive surgical margins (PSM) and lymph node positive. This meta-analysis presented evidence for a benefit of EBL, time to diet, similar perioperative complications and oncological outcomes, but a longer operative time in RARC. It is noted that RARC was considered as a comparable surgical procedure to ORC. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 20% |
| France | 1 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 17% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 20% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 50% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
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 29 March 2019.
All research outputs
#5,605,730
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from BMC Urology
#161
of 755 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,413
of 322,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Urology
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 755 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 322,306 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.