↓ Skip to main content

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer in elderly patients: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgical Oncology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer in elderly patients: a meta-analysis
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12957-015-0705-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jin-ping Lin, Ya-ping Zhang, Meng Xue, Shu-jie Chen, Jian-min Si

Abstract

The effectiveness of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been increasingly reported. However, studies addressing the safety and application value of ESD in elderly patients with early gastric cancer (EGC) were still lacking. This meta-analysis was intended to evaluate the feasibility and safety of ESD in elderly patients with EGC. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Studies were screened out if data of elderly and non-elderly gastric cancer patients were reported separately. The qualities of included studies were assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The pooled odd ratios (ORs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Statistical analysis was conducted using the Review Manager 5.2 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Nine studies (eight in Japan, one in China), including a total of 30,100 lesions, met the inclusion criteria. The "en bloc" and histological complete resection rates of the elderly and non-elderly groups were similar [OR, 0.98, 95 % CI, 0.56 to 1.71; P = 0.93 and OR, 0.79, 95 % CI, 0.58 to 1.07; P = 0.13, respectively]. As for procedure-related complications, similar perforation rates [OR, 1.19, 95 % CI, 0.94 to 1.51; P = 0.15], and bleeding rates [OR, 1.13, 95 % CI, 0.83 to 1.56); P = 0.43] between the elderly and non-elderly groups were observed. Whereas, the elderly patients had a higher procedure-related pneumonia rate compared with non-elderly ones [OR, 2.18, 95 % CI, 1.55 to 3.08; P < 0.01]. The ESD procedure appears to be a safe technique in elderly patients with EGC while appropriate approach should be taken to avoid procedure-related pneumonia.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 32 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 6 18%
Researcher 5 15%
Other 4 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 9 27%
Unknown 4 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Unspecified 1 3%
Linguistics 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 5 15%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 October 2015.
All research outputs
#20,293,238
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#1,582
of 2,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,234
of 277,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#20
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,043 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 277,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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.