↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Extent of lymph node dissection for adenocarcinoma of the stomach

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 Mendeley
Title
Extent of lymph node dissection for adenocarcinoma of the stomach
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001964.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simone Mocellin, Peter McCulloch, Hussain Kazi, Joaquin J Gama‐Rodrigues, Yuhong Yuan, Donato Nitti

Abstract

The impact of lymphadenectomy extent on the survival of patients with primary resectable gastric carcinoma is debated. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the evidence on the impact of the three main types of progressively more extended lymph node dissection (that is, D1, D2 and D3 lymphadenectomy) on the clinical outcome of patients with primary resectable carcinoma of the stomach. The primary objective was to assess the impact of lymphadenectomy extent on survival (overall survival [OS], disease specific survival [DSS] and disease free survival [DFS]). The secondary aim was to assess the impact of lymphadenectomy on post-operative mortality. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE until 2001, including references from relevant articles and conference proceedings. We also contacted known researchers in the field. For the updated review, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 2001 to February 2015. We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the three main types of lymph node dissection (i.e., D1, D2 and D3 lymphadenectomy) in patients with primary non-metastatic resectable carcinoma of the stomach. Two authors independently extracted data from the included studies. Hazard ratios (HR) and relative risks (RR) along with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to measure differences in survival and mortality rates between trial arms, respectively. Potential sources of between-study heterogeneity were investigated by means of subgroup and sensitivity analyses. The same two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies according to the standards of the Cochrane Collaboration and the quality of the overall evidence based on the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. Eight RCTs (enrolling 2515 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Three RCTs (all performed in Asian countries) compared D3 with D2 lymphadenectomy: data suggested no significant difference in OS between these two types of lymph node dissection (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21), with no significant difference in postoperative mortality (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 6.73). Data for DFS were available only from one trial and for no trial were DSS data available. Five RCTs (n = 3 European; n = 2 Asian) compared D2 to D1 lymphadenectomy: OS (n = 5; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.17) and DFS (n=3; HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07) findings suggested no significant difference between these two types of lymph node dissection. In contrast, D2 lymphadenectomy was associated with a significantly better DSS compared to D1 lymphadenectomy (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.92), the quality of the body of evidence being moderate; however, D2 lymphadenectomy was also associated with a higher postoperative mortality rate (RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.04). D2 lymphadenectomy can improve DSS in patients with resectable carcinoma of the stomach, although the increased incidence of postoperative mortality reduces its therapeutic benefit.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 141 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 11%
Researcher 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Other 13 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Other 27 19%
Unknown 43 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 47 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 March 2023.
All research outputs
#20,760,021
of 26,362,953 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12,168
of 13,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,181
of 277,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#258
of 283 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,362,953 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,217 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.6. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 277,322 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 283 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.