| Title |
Surgical treatments for rectal prolapse: how does a perineal approach compare in the laparoscopic era?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-014-3707-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Monica T. Young, Mehraneh D. Jafari, Michael J. Phelan, Michael J. Stamos, Steven Mills, Alessio Pigazzi, Joseph C. Carmichael |
| Abstract |
Patients with rectal prolapse often have significant comorbidities that lead surgeons to select a perineal resection for treatment despite a reported higher recurrence rate over abdominal approaches. There is a lack of data to support this practice in the laparoscopic era. The objective of this study was to evaluate if risk-adjusted morbidity of perineal surgery for rectal prolapse is actually lower than laparoscopic surgery. |
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% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 27 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 25% |
| Unknown | 5 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 71% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
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 05 February 2015.
All research outputs
#14,799,154
of 22,786,087 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#3,567
of 6,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,836
of 228,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#77
of 156 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,786,087 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,030 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 228,700 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 156 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.