↓ Skip to main content

Fast track surgery versus conventional recovery strategies for colorectal surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
476 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
253 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Fast track surgery versus conventional recovery strategies for colorectal surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007635.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Willem R Spanjersberg, Jurrian Reurings, Frederik Keus, Cornelis JHM van Laarhoven

Abstract

In recent years the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) postoperative pathway in (ileo-)colorectal surgery, aiming at improving perioperative care and decreasing postoperative complications, has become more common.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 253 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 3 1%
Rwanda 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Unknown 245 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 56 22%
Researcher 31 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 28 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 11%
Student > Bachelor 24 9%
Other 87 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 158 62%
Unspecified 36 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 4%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Other 15 6%

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 28 June 2013.
All research outputs
#10,023,986
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,326
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,875
of 149,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#116
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 149,451 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.