| Title |
Minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in the People's Republic of China: an overview
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s40667 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chengchu Zhu, Ketao Jin |
| Abstract |
Since its introduction in the People's Republic of China in 1992, minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has shown the classical advantages of minimally invasive surgery over its open counterpart. Like all pioneers of the technique, cardiothoracic surgeons in the People's Republic of China claim that MIE has a lower risk of pulmonary infection, faster recovery, a shorter hospital stay, and a more rapid return to daily activities than open esophagectomy, while offering the same functional and oncologic results. There has been burgeoning interest in MIE in the People's Republic of China since 1995. The last decade has witnessed nationwide growth in the application of MIE and yielded a significant amount of scientific data in support of its clinical merits and advantages. However, no prospective randomized controlled trials have actually investigated the benefits of MIE in the People's Republic of China. Here we review the current data and state of the art MIE treatment for esophageal cancer in the People's Republic of China. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Egypt | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 22% |
| Researcher | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 72% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 2 | 11% |
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 11 March 2013.
All research outputs
#20,823,121
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#1,573
of 2,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,453
of 206,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#18
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,967 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. 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 206,591 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.