↓ Skip to main content

Endoscopic resection versus surgery for early gastric cancer and precancerous lesions: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
4 Mendeley
Title
Endoscopic resection versus surgery for early gastric cancer and precancerous lesions: a meta-analysis
Published in
SpringerPlus, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-2273-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shulei Zhao, Xiaohua Zhang, Jing Wang, Jian Ge, Jin Liu

Abstract

To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection (ER) and surgery for the treatment of early gastric cancer and precancerous lesions. Databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index, from 2000 to 2016, were searched for eligible articles. In this meta-analysis, the main outcome measurements were local recurrence, complications, metachronous lesions, hospital stay, and 5-year overall survival. Nine trials were identified and a total of 2748 patients were included. The rate of complication was higher in the surgery group compared with the ER group (OR 0.41; 95 % CI 0.30-0.55). The rates of local recurrence and metachronous lesions were lower in the surgery group (OR 0.03; 95 % CI 0.00-0.06; OR 8.76; 95 % CI 4.17-18.41). The hospital stay was shorter in the ER group (mean difference -6.96; 95 % CI -7.94 to -5.99). The 5-year overall survival rate did not significantly differ between the two groups (OR 1.23; 95 % CI 1.03-1.47). We provided evidence that, ER was comparable to surgery in terms of the 5-year overall survival. In addition, ER had a lower rate of complications and shorter hospital stay, but a higher rate of local recurrence and metachronous lesions for the treatment of early gastric cancer and precancerous lesions.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 50%
Librarian 1 25%
Unknown 1 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Arts and Humanities 1 25%
Environmental Science 1 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 25%
Unknown 1 25%

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 22 May 2016.
All research outputs
#20,337,210
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,461
of 1,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#286,192
of 333,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#153
of 192 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 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 1,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. 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 333,165 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 192 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.