↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for FIGO stage I ovarian cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
Title
Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for FIGO stage I ovarian cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005344.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frederico S Falcetta, Theresa A Lawrie, Lídia RF Medeiros, Maria Ines da Rosa, Maria I Edelweiss, Airton T Stein, Alice Zelmanowicz, Anaelena B Moraes, Roselaine R Zanini, Daniela D Rosa

Abstract

This is an updated version of the original review that was first published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 4. Laparoscopy has become an increasingly common approach to surgical staging of apparent early-stage ovarian tumours. This review was undertaken to assess the available evidence on the benefits and risks of laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for the management of International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I ovarian cancer. To evaluate the benefits and harms of laparoscopy in the surgical treatment of FIGO stage I ovarian cancer (stages Ia, Ib and Ic) when compared with laparotomy. For the original review, we searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials (CGCRG) Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2007, Issue 2), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Biological Abstracts and CancerLit from 1 January 1990 to 30 November 2007. We also handsearched relevant journals, reference lists of identified studies and conference abstracts. For the first updated review, the search was extended to the CGCRG Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS to 6 December 2011. For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase from November 2011 to September 2016. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and prospective cohort studies comparing laparoscopic staging with open surgery (laparotomy) in women with stage I ovarian cancer according to FIGO. There were no studies to include, therefore we tabulated data from non-randomised studies (NRS) for discussion as well as important data from other meta-analyses. We performed no meta-analyses. This review has found no good-quality evidence to help quantify the risks and benefits of laparoscopy for the management of early-stage ovarian cancer as routine clinical practice.

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 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 132 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Student > Master 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Other 34 26%
Unknown 32 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Engineering 4 3%
Psychology 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 38 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 July 2017.
All research outputs
#3,323,554
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,025
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,843
of 285,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#102
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 285,382 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.