↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
550 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
271 Mendeley
Title
Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2006
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006231
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frederik Keus, Jeroen de Jong, H G Gooszen, C JHM Laarhoven

Abstract

Cholecystectomy is one of the most frequently performed operations. Open cholecystectomy has been the gold standard for over 100 years. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was introduced in the 1980s.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 271 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Morocco 1 <1%
Unknown 267 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 42 15%
Student > Master 36 13%
Student > Postgraduate 32 12%
Researcher 24 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 7%
Other 55 20%
Unknown 62 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 143 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 4%
Psychology 5 2%
Engineering 5 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 1%
Other 24 9%
Unknown 79 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 November 2019.
All research outputs
#7,077,903
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,164
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,106
of 84,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#40
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 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 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 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 84,801 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.