↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Effects of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia on gastric cancer: a retrospective study

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Effects of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia on gastric cancer: a retrospective study
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, March 2018
DOI 10.2147/ott.s156792
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaoyu Zheng, Yu Wang, Linlin Dong, Su Zhao, Liping Wang, Hong Chen, Yang Xu, Guonian Wang

Abstract

Several kinds of cancer surgeries with propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) have been shown to have better outcomes than those with sevoflurane-based inhalational anesthesia (INHA). However, the effects of this anesthetic technique have not been investigated in patients with gastric cancer. In this study, the authors retrospectively examined the link between the choice of anesthetic technique and overall survival in patients undergoing gastric cancer resection. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the database of all patients undergoing gastric cancer resection for gastric cancer between 2007 and 2012. Patients who received TIVA or INHA were administered patient-controlled intravenous analgesia for 72-120 hours postoperatively. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier log-rank test, and associations between anesthetic technique and outcomes were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards regressions after propensity matching. A total of 2,856 anesthetics using INHA or TIVA were delivered in the study period. After propensity matching, 897 patients remained in each group. According to Kaplan-Meier analysis, the use of TIVA was associated with improved survival (P<0.001). TIVA was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-0.77) for death in univariate analysis and 0.65 (95% CI: 0.56-0.75) after a multivariate analysis of known confounders in the matched group. Cancer stage (HR =0.74, 95% CI: 0.64-0.86,P<0.001) and degree of differentiation (HR =1.28, 95% CI: 1.11-1.47,P<0.001) were also associated with survival in the univariate analysis in the matched group. In the multivariable Cox model, cancer stage (HR =0.72, 95% CI: 0.62-0.84,P<0.001) and degree of differentiation (HR =1.23, 95% CI: 1.07-1.42,P<0.001) were associated with survival in the matched group. These results indicate that TIVA may be associated with improved survival in gastric cancer patients who undergo resection.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 4 14%
Professor 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 3 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 68%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#7,714,637
of 12,793,889 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#430
of 1,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,632
of 273,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#16
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,793,889 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,624 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 273,613 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 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 62% of its contemporaries.