| Title |
Appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment for acute appendicitis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2024
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd015038.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brett Doleman, Siv Fonnes, Jon N Lund, Hannah Boyd-Carson, Hannah Javanmard-Emamghissi, Susan Moug, Marianne Hollyman, Gillian Tierney, Samson Tou, John P Williams |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 20 | 44% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Costa Rica | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 16 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 22 | 49% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 13 | 29% |
| Scientists | 10 | 22% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | 2% |
| Iceland | 1 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 54 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 15% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 12 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 67% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Engineering | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 14 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 23 May 2024.
All research outputs
#1,155,886
of 25,965,655 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,253
of 13,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,213
of 228,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,965,655 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,170 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 228,944 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 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.