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 |
Meta-analysis of defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: evidence based on thirteen studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12957-014-0417-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wen-long Gu, Sheng-wen Wu |
| Abstract |
BackgroundRecent studies have shown that a protective stoma can reduce morbidity in low anterior resection for rectal cancer; however, the necessity of it is still controversially discussed.MethodsWe performed this meta-analysis to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the role of defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection for rectal cancer on the rates of anastomotic leakage and reoperation related to leakage with or without defunctioning stoma by calculating the pooled risk ratio.ResultsStudies and relevant literature published between 2004 and 2014 regarding the construction of a protective stoma after low anterior resection were searched though PubMed and EMBASE databases. Finally, a total of 13 studies including 8,002 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results indicated that protective stomas significantly reduced the rate of postoperative anastomotic leakage and reoperation after low anterior rectal resection. The pooled risk ratios were 0.47 (95% CI: 0.33¿0.68, P <0.0001) and 0.36 (95% CI: 028¿0.46, P <0.00001), respectively.ConclusionsThe findings from this present meta-analysis suggest that a defunctioning stoma could effectively reduce the clinical consequences of anastomotic leakage and reoperation, it is recommended in patients undergoing low rectal anterior resection for rectal cancer. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 99 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 12% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 17 | 17% |
| Unknown | 22 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 58 | 58% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Psychology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 26 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 February 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#1,099
of 2,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,726
of 359,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#78
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,145 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 359,728 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.