↓ Skip to main content

Variation in bladder reconstruction after radical cystectomy

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Urology, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Variation in bladder reconstruction after radical cystectomy
Published in
British Journal of Urology, February 2013
DOI 10.1111/j.1464-410x.2012.11644.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luke S. Hounsome, Gary A. Abel, Julia Verne, David E. Neal, Georgios Lyratzopoulos

Abstract

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: How often orthotopic reconstruction should be used after radical cystectomy is uncertain. Male sex, younger age, affluence, white ethnicity and treatment in specialist hospitals may be associated with more frequent use. More evidence about the level and likely variation in the use of orthotopic surgery is needed to establish whether there are inequalities and unmet need. In England during the study period orthotopic bladder reconstruction was likely to be used in about one in 15 patients treated by radical cystectomy. This is lower than previously reported in US series or European studies. Men and younger patients were more likely to be treated by orthotopic reconstruction, as were more affluent patients and those with less advanced disease. Whether clinical reasons or patient choice can explain some of this variation is unclear. There was no evidence for variation between different English cancer networks. A specific procedure code to allow routine analysis of population-based nationwide data would be invaluable for ongoing monitoring of potential inequalities and unmet need.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 57 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 15 25%
Professor 10 17%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Lecturer 4 7%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 8 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 25%
Computer Science 9 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 8%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 13 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 February 2013.
All research outputs
#3,629,061
of 25,411,814 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Urology
#1,315
of 6,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,040
of 291,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Urology
#24
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,411,814 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,321 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 291,322 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 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 73% of its contemporaries.