↓ Skip to main content

Guidewire-assisted cannulation of the common bile duct for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
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.
Title
Guidewire-assisted cannulation of the common bile duct for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009662.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frances Tse, Yuhong Yuan, Paul Moayyedi, Grigorios I Leontiadis

Abstract

Cannulation techniques have been recognized to be important in causing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). However, considerable controversy exists about the usefulness of the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique for the prevention of PEP.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 87 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 19%
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Postgraduate 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 11 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 17 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 23 August 2020.
All research outputs
#2,999,719
of 15,900,481 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,713
of 11,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,075
of 254,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#283
of 489 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,900,481 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,320 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.6. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 254,661 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 489 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.