| Title |
Randomised clinical trial of pilonidal sinus operations performed in the prone position under spinal anaesthesia with hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 % versus total intravenous anaesthesia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Colorectal Disease, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00384-012-1619-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marc D. Schmittner, Sven Dieterich, Volker Gebhardt, Christel Weiss, Marc A. Burmeister, Dieter G. Bussen, Tim Viergutz |
| Abstract |
The aim of this randomised clinical trial was to determine whether spinal anaesthesia (SPA) is superior to total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) in patients undergoing pilonidal sinus (PS) operations in the prone position. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 15% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Librarian | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 23% |
| Unknown | 10 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 15 | 32% |
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 19 December 2013.
All research outputs
#17,671,894
of 22,687,320 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Colorectal Disease
#1,189
of 1,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,914
of 276,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Colorectal Disease
#10
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,687,320 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,826 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 276,634 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.