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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003327.pub4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bobby VM Dasari, Chuan Jin Tan, Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, David J Martin, Gareth Kirk, Lloyd McKie, Tom Diamond, Mark A Taylor |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 States | 1 | 25% |
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 75% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 390 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 2 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 383 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 54 | 14% |
| Other | 49 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 41 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 39 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 32 | 8% |
| Other | 86 | 22% |
| Unknown | 89 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 218 | 56% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 1% |
| Other | 28 | 7% |
| Unknown | 107 | 27% |
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 24 December 2020.
All research outputs
#8,221,102
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,904
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,423
of 320,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#170
of 211 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 320,775 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 211 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.