| Title |
Open Versus Laparoscopic Pyloromyotomy for Hypertrophic Pyloric Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Focusing on Major Complications
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-012-2174-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. W. N. Oomen, L. T. Hoekstra, R. Bakx, D. T. Ubbink, H. A. Heij |
| Abstract |
There is an ongoing debate about whether laparoscopic pyloromyotomy (LP) or open pyloromyotomy (OP) is the best option for treating hypertrophic pyloric stenosis (HPS). The aim of this study was to compare the results of both surgical strategies by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 56 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 19% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 15 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 59% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 2% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 16 | 28% |
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 12 November 2021.
All research outputs
#6,378,576
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#1,302
of 5,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,314
of 156,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#6
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,990 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 156,309 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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.