↓ Skip to main content

Development of a Unifying Target and Consensus Indicators for Global Surgical Systems Strengthening: Proposed by the Global Alliance for Surgery, Obstetric, Trauma, and Anaesthesia Care (The G4…

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgery, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
46 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 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
Development of a Unifying Target and Consensus Indicators for Global Surgical Systems Strengthening: Proposed by the Global Alliance for Surgery, Obstetric, Trauma, and Anaesthesia Care (The G4 Alliance)
Published in
World Journal of Surgery, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00268-017-4028-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adil Haider, John W. Scott, Colin D. Gause, Mira Meheš, Grace Hsiung, Albulena Prelvukaj, Dana Yanocha, Lauren M. Baumann, Faheem Ahmed, Na’eem Ahmed, Sara Anderson, Herve Angate, Lisa Arfaa, Horacio Asbun, Tigistu Ashengo, Kisembo Asuman, Ruben Ayala, Stephen Bickler, Saul Billingsley, Peter Bird, Matthijs Botman, Marilyn Butler, Jo Buyske, Angelo Capozzi, Kathleen Casey, Charles Clayton, James Cobey, Michael Cotton, Dan Deckelbaum, Miliard Derbew, Catherine deVries, Jeanne Dillner, Max Downham, Natalie Draisin, David Echinard, Sohier Elneil, Ahmed ElSayed, Abigail Estelle, Allen Finley, Erica Frenkel, Philip K. Frykman, Florin Gheorghe, Julian Gore‐Booth, Richard Henker, Jaymie Henry, Orion Henry, Laura Hoemeke, David Hoffman, Iko Ibanga, Eric V. Jackson, Pankaj Jani, Walter Johnson, Andrew Jones, Zeina Kassem, Asuman Kisembo, Abbey Kocan, Sanjay Krishnaswami, Robert Lane, Asad Latif, Barbara Levy, Dimitrios Linos, Peter Linz, Louis A. Listwa, Declan Magee, Emmanuel Makasa, Michael L. Marin, Claude Martin, Kelly McQueen, Jamie Morgan, Richard Moser, Robert Neighbor, William M. Novick, Stephen Ogendo, Akinyinka Omigbodun, Bisola Onajin‐Obembe, Neil Parsan, Beverly K. Philip, Raymond Price, Shahnawaz Rasheed, Marjorie Ratel, Cheri Reynolds, Steven M. Roser, Jackie Rowles, Lubna Samad, John Sampson, Harshadkumar Sanghvi, Marchelle L. Sellers, David Sigalet, Bruce C. Steffes, Erin Stieber, Mamta Swaroop, John Tarpley, Asha Varghese, Julie Varughese, Richard Wagner, Benjamin Warf, Neil Wetzig, Susan Williamson, Joshua Wood, Anne Zeidan, Lewis Zirkle, Brendan Allen, Fizan Abdullah

Abstract

After decades on the margins of primary health care, surgical and anaesthesia care is gaining increasing priority within the global development arena. The 2015 publications of the Disease Control Priorities third edition on Essential Surgery and the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery created a compelling evidenced-based argument for the fundamental role of surgery and anaesthesia within cost-effective health systems strengthening global strategy. The launch of the Global Alliance for Surgical, Obstetric, Trauma, and Anaesthesia Care in 2015 has further coordinated efforts to build priority for surgical care and anaesthesia. These combined efforts culminated in the approval of a World Health Assembly resolution recognizing the role of surgical care and anaesthesia as part of universal health coverage. Momentum gained from these milestones highlights the need to identify consensus goals, targets and indicators to guide policy implementation and track progress at the national level. Through an open consultative process that incorporated input from stakeholders from around the globe, a global target calling for safe surgical and anaesthesia care for 80% of the world by 2030 was proposed. In order to achieve this target, we also propose 15 consensus indicators that build on existing surgical systems metrics and expand the ability to prioritize surgical systems strengthening around the world.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 X users 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 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 132 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Master 14 11%
Other 10 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 43 33%
Unknown 33 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 11%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Engineering 3 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 39 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 04 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,104,446
of 23,539,593 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#99
of 4,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,428
of 311,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#3
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,539,593 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,319 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 311,091 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.