↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Anaesthetic techniques for risk of malignant tumour recurrence

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
120 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
340 Mendeley
Title
Anaesthetic techniques for risk of malignant tumour recurrence
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008877.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ozlem S Cakmakkaya, Kerstin Kolodzie, Christian C Apfel, Nathan Leon Pace

Abstract

Surgery remains a mainstay of treatment for malignant tumours; however, surgical manipulation leads to a significant systemic release of tumour cells. Whether these cells lead to metastases is largely dependent on the balance between aggressiveness of the tumour cells and resilience of the body. Surgical stress per se, anaesthetic agents and administration of opioid analgesics perioperatively can compromise immune function and might shift the balance towards progression of minimal residual disease. Regional anaesthesia techniques provide perioperative pain relief; they therefore reduce the quantity of systemic opioids and of anaesthetic agents used. Additionally, regional anaesthesia techniques are known to prevent or attenuate the surgical stress response. In recent years, the potential benefit of regional anaesthesia techniques for tumour recurrence has received major attention and has been discussed many times in the literature. In preparing this review, we aimed to summarize the current evidence systematically and comprehensively.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 340 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 334 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 12%
Researcher 38 11%
Student > Bachelor 34 10%
Other 26 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 7%
Other 67 20%
Unknown 111 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 139 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 7%
Psychology 13 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 2%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Other 35 10%
Unknown 117 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 04 February 2020.
All research outputs
#6,599,710
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,870
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,353
of 276,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#170
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 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 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 276,399 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.