↓ Skip to main content

Perioperative Blood Transfusion and the Prognosis of Pancreatic Cancer Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgical Oncology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Perioperative Blood Transfusion and the Prognosis of Pancreatic Cancer Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology, August 2015
DOI 10.1245/s10434-015-4823-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael N. Mavros, Li Xu, Hadia Maqsood, Faiz Gani, Aslam Ejaz, Gaya Spolverato, Waddah B. Al-Refaie, Steven M. Frank, Timothy M. Pawlik

Abstract

Perioperative blood transfusion (PBT) is common in pancreatic surgery. Recent studies have suggested that PBT may be associated with worse long-term outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing long-term clinical outcomes of cancer patients undergoing curative-intent pancreatic surgery with regard to occurrence of PBT was performed. A total of 23 studies (4339 patients) were included in the systematic review, and 19 studies (3646 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Nearly half (45.8 %) of all patients were female (range 25-60 %), and median age ranged from 59 to 72 years. About half (46.5 %, range 19-72 %) of the patients were transfused. Most had pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (69.5 %), while others had ampullary carcinoma (15.0 %), cholangiocarcinoma (7.4 %), or exocrine tumors of pancreas (8.1 %). Most (91.1 %) underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy, while the remaining patients underwent a total or distal pancreatectomy. The 5-year overall survival for all patients ranged from 0 to 65 %. Thirteen and nine of 19 studies reported a detrimental effect of PBT on survival on univariable and multivariable analysis, respectively. Overall, PBT was associated with shorter overall survival (pooled odds ratio 2.43, 95 % confidence interval 1.90-3.10); this finding was reproduced in sensitivity analysis. Patients receiving PBT had significantly lower 5-year survival after curative-intent pancreatic surgery. Further research should focus on implementing guidelines for and discerning factors associated with the poor outcomes after PBT.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 8 25%
Student > Postgraduate 6 19%
Other 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Professor 3 9%
Other 7 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 50%
Unspecified 14 44%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%

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 27 November 2015.
All research outputs
#9,942,605
of 12,419,165 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#2,233
of 2,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,143
of 241,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#94
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,419,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,896 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 241,493 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.