↓ Skip to main content

Laparoscopic versus open wedge resection for gastrointestinal stromal tumors of the stomach: a single-center 8-year retrospective cohort study of 156 patients with long-term follow-up

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Surgery, May 2015
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 (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Laparoscopic versus open wedge resection for gastrointestinal stromal tumors of the stomach: a single-center 8-year retrospective cohort study of 156 patients with long-term follow-up
Published in
BMC Surgery, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12893-015-0040-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jia-Qin Cai, Ke Chen, Yi-Ping Mou, Yu Pan, Xiao-Wu Xu, Yu-Cheng Zhou, Chao-Jie Huang

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compared laparoscopic (LWR) and open wedge resection (OWR) for the treatment of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). The data of 156 consecutive GISTs patients underwent LWR or OWR between January 2006 and December 2013 were collected retrospectively. The surgical outcomes and the long-term survival rates were compared. Besides, a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Clinicopathological characteristics of the patients were similar between the two groups. The LWR group was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (67.3 vs. 142.7 ml, P < 0.001), earlier postoperative flatus (2.3 vs. 3.2 days, P < 0.001), earlier oral intake (3.2 vs. 4.1 days, P < 0.001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (6.0 vs. 8.0 days, P = 0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications was lower in LWR group but did not reach statistical significance (4/90, 4.4% vs. 8/66, 12.1%, P = 0.12). No significant difference was observed in 3-year relapse-free survival rate between the two groups (98.6% vs. 96.4%, P > 0.05). The meta-analysis revealed similar results except less overall complications in the LWR group (RR = 0.49, 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.95, P = 0.04). And the recurrence risk was similar in two group (RR = 0.80, 95% CI, 0.28 to 2.27, P > 0.05). LWR is a technically and oncologically safe and feasible approach for gastric GISTs compared with OWR. Moreover, LWR appears to be a preferable choice with mini-invasive benefits.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 21%
Student > Master 3 16%
Researcher 3 16%
Other 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 58%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Design 1 5%
Unknown 4 21%

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 09 May 2015.
All research outputs
#14,160,518
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from BMC Surgery
#262
of 1,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,324
of 263,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Surgery
#12
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,320 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 263,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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 60% of its contemporaries.