| Title |
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: consensus conference-based guidelines
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00423-015-1300-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ferdinando Agresta, Fabio Cesare Campanile, Nereo Vettoretto, Gianfranco Silecchia, Carlo Bergamini, Pietro Maida, Pietro Lombari, Piero Narilli, Domenico Marchi, Alessandro Carrara, Maria Grazia Esposito, Stefania Fiume, Giuseppe Miranda, Simona Barlera, Marina Davoli, on the behalf of The Italian Surgical Societies Working Group on the behalf of The Italian Surgical Societies Working Group |
| Abstract |
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard technique for gallbladder diseases in both acute and elective surgery. Nevertheless, reports from national surveys still seem to represent some doubts regarding its diffusion. There is neither a wide consensus on its indications nor on its possible related morbidity. On the other hand, more than 25 years have passed since the introduction of LC, and we have all witnessed the exponential growth of knowledge, skill and technology that has followed it. In 1995, the EAES published its consensus statement on laparoscopic cholecystectomy in which seven main questions were answered, according to the available evidence. During the following 20 years, there have been several additional guidelines on LC, mainly focused on some particular aspect, such as emergency or concomitant biliary tract surgery. In 2012, several Italian surgical societies decided to revisit the clinical recommendations for the role of laparoscopy in the treatment of gallbladder diseases in adults, to update and supplement the existing guidelines with recommendations that reflect what is known and what constitutes good practice concerning LC. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Morocco | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 133 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 10% |
| Other | 10 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 22 | 16% |
| Unknown | 52 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 59 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 4% |
| Unknown | 58 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 29 October 2022.
All research outputs
#6,960,512
of 24,703,227 outputs
Outputs from Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
#205
of 1,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,123
of 269,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
#2
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,703,227 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,259 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 269,793 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.