| Title |
Reduction in obesity-related comorbidities: is gastric bypass better than sleeve gastrectomy?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-012-2595-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Niu Zhang, Anthony Maffei, Thomas Cerabona, Anil Pahuja, Juan Omana, Ashutosh Kaul |
| Abstract |
Bariatric surgery is currently the most effective treatment for morbid obesity. It provides not only substantial weight loss, but also resolution of obesity-related comorbidities. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has rapidly been gaining in popularity. However, there are limited data on the reduction of obesity-related comorbidities for LSG compared to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of laparoscopic LSG versus LRYGB for the treatment of obesity-related comorbidities. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 2 | 29% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 90 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 23 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 17% |
| Unknown | 24 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 41% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 29 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 22 February 2014.
All research outputs
#6,099,650
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#1,167
of 6,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,035
of 278,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#13
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,002 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 278,829 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.