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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for the treatment of solid abdominal and thoracic neoplasms in children
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008403.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elvira C van Dalen, Manou S de Lijster, Lieve GJ Leijssen, Erna MC Michiels, Leontien CM Kremer, Huib N Caron, Daniel C Aronson |
| Abstract |
Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is an accepted surgical technique for the treatment of a variety of benign diseases. Presently, the use of MIS in patients with cancer is progressing. However, the role of MIS in children with solid neoplasms is less clear than it is in adults. Although the use of diagnostic MIS to obtain biopsy specimens for pathology is accepted in paediatric surgical oncology, there is limited evidence to support the use of MIS for the resection of malignancies. This review is the second update of a previously published Cochrane review. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 141 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 10% |
| Researcher | 11 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 10 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 26 | 18% |
| Unknown | 51 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 30% |
| Unspecified | 10 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 6% |
| Psychology | 4 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Unknown | 62 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 26 October 2016.
All research outputs
#2,619,256
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,208
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,825
of 359,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#118
of 279 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
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 359,222 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 279 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.