| Title |
Wound infiltration with local anaesthetic agents for laparoscopic cholecystectomy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007049.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sofronis Loizides, Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Myura Nagendran, Michele Rossi, Gian Piero Guerrini, Brian R Davidson |
| Abstract |
While laparoscopic cholecystectomy is generally considered to be less painful than open surgery, pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after day surgery resulting in overnight stay following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety and effectiveness of local anaesthetic wound infiltration in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy is not known. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Ecuador | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 211 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 32 | 15% |
| Researcher | 20 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 20 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 8% |
| Other | 47 | 22% |
| Unknown | 55 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 92 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 3% |
| Psychology | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 20 | 9% |
| Unknown | 64 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 April 2015.
All research outputs
#17,348,622
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,493
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,670
of 235,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#213
of 233 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 235,853 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 233 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.