| Title |
Endoscopic assisted adenoidectomy versus conventional curettage adenoidectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-016-2072-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Liyun Yang, Yamin Shan, Shili Wang, Changping Cai, Hao Zhang |
| Abstract |
Adenoidectomy, surgical removal of hypertrophic adenoids, is a common operation in children worldwide. The purpose of this study was to compare the operative effectiveness, and included total operative time, blood loss and complications, between endoscopic assisted adenoidectomy and conventional curettage adenoidectomy. EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure and symposiums and review articles were used to choose relevant randomized controlled trials. A meta-analysis was performed to analyze the data for total operative time, blood loss and complications. Seven studies fit the inclusion criteria, and included 331 patients treated with endoscopic assisted adenoidectomy, and 251 patients treated with conventional curettage adenoidectomy. The meta-analysis demonstrated that compared with conventional curettage adenoidectomy, endoscopic assisted adenoidectomy had a shorter operative time (SMD -1.09; 95 % CI -1.29 to -0.90; p < 0.00001), less blood loss (MD -19.74; 95 % CI -22.75 to -16.73; p < 0.00001), and fewer complications (OR 0.15; 95 % CI 0.07-0.35; p < 0.0001). Endoscopic assisted adenoidectomy has advantages over conventional curettage adenoidectomy with regard to total operative time, blood loss and complications. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 27% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 14% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 59% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 32% |
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 24 April 2016.
All research outputs
#18,453,763
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,261
of 1,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,402
of 300,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#135
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 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 1,850 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 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 300,956 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.