↓ Skip to main content

Paediatric surgery in the last 50 years

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Paediatrics & Child Health, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Paediatric surgery in the last 50 years
Published in
Journal of Paediatrics & Child Health, January 2015
DOI 10.1111/jpc.12810
Pubmed ID
Authors

Craig A McBride, Andrew JA Holland

Abstract

In the 50 years since the first edition of this journal, operative paediatric surgery has undergone radical change. Many of the most common instruments are unchanged, both as a testament to their utility and in recognition of past surgeons remembered eponymously. Surrounding that basic core of instruments, theatre has changed radically as new tools and techniques have arisen. Surgeons have come down from their pedestals, recognising surgery as a team sport rather than a solo performance. More than half of the current paediatric surgical trainees are women, a higher proportion than in any other craft group of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. The appearance, and rapid development, of laparoscopy is to many observers the most notable change in surgery over the last 50 years. Placed in its context though, it is simply the most prominent example of a frameshift in surgical thinking. The patient as a whole is now the focus, rather than just the disease. Recent developments are as much about minimising harm to normal tissues as they are about extirpating pathology. As a surgical maxim, 'Primum non nocere' is even more in evidence in 2015 than it was in 1965.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 20%
Student > Master 3 15%
Student > Postgraduate 3 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Other 4 20%
Unknown 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 55%
Sports and Recreations 3 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Unknown 4 20%
Attention Score in Context

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 09 August 2015.
All research outputs
#16,106,935
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Paediatrics & Child Health
#2,100
of 3,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,756
of 361,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Paediatrics & Child Health
#34
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,371 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 361,457 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 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.