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 |
Systematic review of five feeding routes after pancreatoduodenectomy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of Surgery, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/bjs.9049 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. Gerritsen, M. G. H. Besselink, D. J. Gouma, E. Steenhagen, I. H. M. Borel Rinkes, I. Q. Molenaar |
| Abstract |
Current European guidelines recommend routine enteral feeding after pancreato-duodenectomy (PD), whereas American guidelines do not. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal feeding route after PD. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 89 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 14% |
| Researcher | 11 | 12% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Other | 22 | 24% |
| Unknown | 18 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 53 | 57% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 26 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 February 2013.
All research outputs
#13,880,538
of 22,693,205 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Surgery
#4,259
of 5,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,364
of 280,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Surgery
#23
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,693,205 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,230 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 280,879 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.