↓ Skip to main content

Trends in Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Incidence, Etiology, Treatment, and Prognosis

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgery, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
183 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
Title
Trends in Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Incidence, Etiology, Treatment, and Prognosis
Published in
World Journal of Surgery, February 2014
DOI 10.1007/s002689910045
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cecilie Svanes

Abstract

After increasing steeply at the beginning of the twentieth century, ulcer perforation incidence during the last decades has declined in the young and in men, and it has risen among the elderly and in women. These changes can be attributed to a cohort phenomenon: Ulcer perforation risk is particularly common in the cohorts born after the turn of the twentieth century and is less common in previous and succeeding birth cohorts. A decline in total incidence is expected with the death of the high risk cohorts. Most ulcer perforations among subjects < 75 years of age can be attributed to smoking. Subjects with a history of ulcer perforation therefore have poorer long-term survival than the general population, most pronounced for younger generations. About one of four ulcer perforations can be attributed to the use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, a risk factor of particular importance in the elderly. Ulcer perforation was frequently treated by gastric resection in former days, whereas suture, being the first method introduced in 1887, is the method of choice today. The introduction of antibiotics improved the prognosis of ulcer perforation surgery greatly. Postoperative lethality decreased until 1950 but has remained stable since then. Lethality is higher in the elderly and is higher after gastric than after duodenal perforation. The delay before surgical treatment is a strong determinant for lethality, complication rates, and hospital costs. Treatment delay seems to have increased during the last

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 92 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 9%
Student > Master 8 9%
Other 7 8%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 34 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 44%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Unspecified 1 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 40 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 February 2017.
All research outputs
#8,463,388
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#1,594
of 4,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,693
of 333,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#27
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,697 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 333,771 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.