| Title |
Open Preperitoneal Techniques versus Lichtenstein Repair for elective Inguinal Hernias
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008034.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wouter Willaert, Dirk De Bacquer, Xavier Rogiers, Roberto Troisi, Frederik Berrevoet |
| Abstract |
Current techniques for inguinal hernia repair show similar recurrence rates. Therefore, recurrence is no longer the main issue discussed when considering improving the current standards for groin hernia repair. Post surgical chronic pain represents a major, largely unrecognised clinical problem. Consequently, there is a need to not only decrease an extensive dissection in the inguinal canal with less manipulation of the inguinal nerves, but also to minimize the interaction between the mesh and major surrounding structures. As a result, placing the mesh in the preperitoneal space is a valuable option. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 158 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 24 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 8% |
| Researcher | 12 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 34 | 21% |
| Unknown | 47 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 74 | 47% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 6% |
| Psychology | 3 | 2% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 1% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 12 | 8% |
| Unknown | 57 | 36% |
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 10 August 2012.
All research outputs
#20,723,696
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,914
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,661
of 178,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#163
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 178,136 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.