| Title |
Which should be the gold standard laparoscopic technique for handling Spigelian hernias?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-014-3738-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alfredo Moreno-Egea, Álvaro Campillo-Soto, German Morales-Cuenca |
| Abstract |
The advantages and disadvantages of both extraperitoneal and intra-abdominal laparoscopic Spigelian hernia repair are still being discussed. To our knowledge, no study has compared both techniques in terms of safety, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 25% |
| Australia | 1 | 13% |
| United Arab Emirates | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 33 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 12% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Researcher | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 18% |
| Unknown | 13 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Design | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 16 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 07 September 2015.
All research outputs
#5,573,227
of 23,340,595 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#912
of 6,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,975
of 230,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#17
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,340,595 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,182 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 230,111 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 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.