↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility and safety of robot-assisted thoracic surgery for lung lobectomy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgical Oncology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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
Feasibility and safety of robot-assisted thoracic surgery for lung lobectomy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12957-017-1168-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shiyou Wei, Minghao Chen, Nan Chen, Lunxu Liu

Abstract

The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) lobectomy versus video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) for lobectomy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). An electronic search of six electronic databases was performed to identify relevant comparative studies. Meta-analysis was performed by pooling the results of reported incidence of overall morbidity, mortality, prolonged air leak, arrhythmia, and pneumonia between RATS and VATS lobectomy. Subgroup analysis was also conducted based on matched and unmatched cohort studies, if possible. Relative risks (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated by means of Revman version 5.3. Twelve retrospective cohort studies were included, with a total of 60,959 patients. RATS lobectomy significantly reduced the mortality rate when compared with VATS lobectomy (RR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.77; P = 0.0006), but this was not consistent with the pooled result of six matched studies (RR = 0.12, 95% CI 0.01-1.07; P = 0.06). There was no significant difference in morbidity between the two approaches (RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.85-1.12; P = 0.70). RATS lobectomy is a feasible and safe technique and can achieve an equivalent short-term surgical efficacy when compared with VATS, but its cost effectiveness also should be taken into consideration.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Student > Master 11 13%
Researcher 8 9%
Other 7 8%
Unspecified 7 8%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 25 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 43%
Unspecified 7 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 32 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 May 2022.
All research outputs
#7,535,755
of 22,992,311 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#241
of 2,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,315
of 310,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,992,311 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,054 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 310,579 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.