| Title |
A new accurate method of physical examination for differentiation of inguinal hernia types
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-013-3359-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wouter G. Tromp, Baukje van den Heuvel, Boudewijn J. Dwars |
| Abstract |
It is generally stated that preoperative differentiation between indirect and direct inguinal hernias by physical examination is inaccurate and irrelevant. With the expansion of the laparoscopic technique, new relevance has emerged. Laparoscopic correction of an indirect hernia is more challenging and time consuming than laparoscopic correction of a direct hernia. Preoperative knowledge concerning the type of hernia informs the laparoscopic surgeon about the required expertise and the expected operative time, and this knowledge is useful for training programs and management. The authors therefore developed a new accurate and easy method of physical examination to differentiate types of inguinal hernia. A prospective study was conducted to determine the accuracy of this new method that combines physical examination with a hand-held Doppler device (not ultrasound) to differentiate types of inguinal hernia. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 50% |
| Mexico | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 12 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 52% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 3% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 15 June 2015.
All research outputs
#14,643,249
of 22,739,983 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#3,499
of 6,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,112
of 304,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#65
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,739,983 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,017 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 304,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.