↓ Skip to main content

Miniports versus standard ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Miniports versus standard ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006804.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Jessica Vaughan, Rajarajan Ramamoorthy, Giuseppe Fusai, Brian R Davidson

Abstract

In conventional (standard) port laparoscopic cholecystectomy, four abdominal ports (two of 10 mm diameter and two of 5 mm diameter) are used. Recently, use of smaller ports, miniports, have been reported.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Student > Postgraduate 8 11%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Other 18 26%
Unknown 8 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 10 14%

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 January 2014.
All research outputs
#9,618,885
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,391
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,468
of 159,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#87
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 159,640 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.