↓ Skip to main content

The comparison of perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted and open partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgical Oncology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
The comparison of perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted and open partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12957-016-0971-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhonghua Shen, Linguo Xie, Wanqin Xie, Hailong Hu, Tao Chen, Chen Xing, Xiaoteng Liu, Hao Xu, Yu Zhang, Zhouliang Wu, Dawei Tian, Changli Wu

Abstract

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) has been widely used worldwide, to determine whether RAPN is a safe and effective alternative to open partial nephrectomy (OPN) via the comparison of RANP and OPN. A comprehensive literature search was performed within the databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase updated on 30 September 2015. Summary data with their corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random effects or fixed effects model. Heterogeneity and publication bias were also evaluated. A total of 16 comparative studies including 3024 cases were used for this meta-analysis. There are no significant differences in the demographic characteristic between the two groups, but the age was lower and the tumor size was smaller for the RAPN group. RAPN had a longer operative time and warm ischemia time but which showed less estimated blood loss, hospital stay, and perioperative complications. No differences existed in the margin status, the change of glomerular filtration rate, transfusion rate, and conversion rate between the two groups. There was no significant publication bias. RAPN offered a lower rate of perioperative complications, less estimated blood loss, and shorter length of hospital stay than OPN, suggesting that RAPN can be an effective alternative to OPN. Well-designed prospective randomized controlled trials will be helpful in validating our findings.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 14%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Postgraduate 6 11%
Student > Master 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 18 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Decision Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 26 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 28 December 2016.
All research outputs
#5,918,223
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#162
of 2,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,942
of 343,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#4
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,048 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 343,914 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.