↓ Skip to main content

Routine abdominal drainage versus no abdominal drainage for uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Routine abdominal drainage versus no abdominal drainage for uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006004.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Rahul Koti, Brian R Davidson

Abstract

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the main method of treatment of symptomatic gallstones. Drains are used after laparoscopic cholecystectomy to prevent abdominal collections. However, drain use may increase infective complications and delay discharge.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 83 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 17%
Researcher 14 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Master 10 12%
Other 8 10%
Other 28 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 64%
Unspecified 9 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Psychology 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 8 10%

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 14 August 2016.
All research outputs
#6,788,892
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,212
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,955
of 162,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#79
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 162,431 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.