↓ Skip to main content

Effects of exercise training on patients with lung cancer who underwent lung resection: a meta-analysis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Effects of exercise training on patients with lung cancer who underwent lung resection: a meta-analysis
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12957-017-1233-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jie Li, Nan-Nan Guo, Hai-Rong Jin, Hua Yu, Peng Wang, Guo-Gang Xu

Abstract

The efficacy of exercise training in patients with lung cancer after lung resection has not been well established yet. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to investigate the efficiency of exercise training in patients with lung cancer after lung resection. Several databases were searched for eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was quality of life, and the secondary outcomes included 6-min walk distance (6MWD), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and postoperative complications (POCs). Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by random-effects model. Six RCTs involving 438 patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis. The pooled WMDs of the scores were 2.41 (95% CI = -5.20 to 10.02; P = 0.54) and -0.46 (95% CI = -20.52 to 19.61; P = 0.96) for the physical and mental components of the 36-item short-form scale, respectively. The pooled WMDs were 23.50 m (95% CI = -22.04 to 69.03; P = 0.31) for 6MWD and 0.03 L (95% CI = -0.19 to 0.26; P = 0.76) for FEV1. Finally, the pooled RRs were 0.79 (95% CI = 0.41 to 1.53; P = 0.49) for POCs. Insufficient evidence is available to support the efficacy of exercise training in patients with lung cancer after lung resection. Further studies must confirm our findings and investigate the long-term effects of exercise training on patients with lung cancer following lung resection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 21%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Researcher 6 8%
Other 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 21 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 15%
Sports and Recreations 7 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 27 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 May 2018.
All research outputs
#14,362,315
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#445
of 2,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,354
of 317,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#9
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 75% 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 317,355 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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 56% of its contemporaries.