↓ Skip to main content

T-tube drainage versus primary closure after open common bile duct exploration

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
T-tube drainage versus primary closure after open common bile duct exploration
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005640.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Rahul Koti, Brian R Davidson

Abstract

Between 5% and 11% of people undergoing cholecystectomy have common bile duct stones. Stones may be removed at the time of cholecystectomy by opening and clearing the common bile duct. The optimal technique is unclear.

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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 1 1%
Unknown 82 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 15 18%
Student > Postgraduate 12 14%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Other 26 31%
Unknown 1 1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 67%
Unspecified 11 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 1 1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 January 2017.
All research outputs
#3,295,839
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,695
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,584
of 154,586 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#58
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
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 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 154,586 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.