| Title |
From NELA to EPOCH and beyond: enhancing the evidence base for emergency laparotomy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Perioperative Medicine, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13741-016-0048-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter M. Odor, Michael P. W. Grocott |
| Abstract |
Around 35,000 patients undergo emergency laparotomy surgery in the UK each year with an in-hospital 30-day mortality estimated as between 11 and 15 %. The recent publication of the First Patient Report of the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) has provided a detailed description of individual hospital performance against national standards of care in emergency laparotomy in England and Wales. Although the standards used for audit purposes in NELA are based upon the best currently available evidence, none of the source data derives from randomised controlled studies. This commentary explores the evidence base for the standards evaluated by NELA and highlights recent and forthcoming studies that may substantially contribute to improving the evidence base in this area, thereby improving patient care and strengthening the validity of the NELA audit standards. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 8 | 47% |
| Australia | 1 | 6% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 59% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 35% |
| Scientists | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 18% |
| Researcher | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 13 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 57% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 17 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 28 July 2017.
All research outputs
#3,055,398
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from Perioperative Medicine
#41
of 243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,783
of 337,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perioperative Medicine
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 243 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 337,395 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.