↓ Skip to main content

Routine intraoperative ureteric stenting for kidney transplant recipients

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 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 intraoperative ureteric stenting for kidney transplant recipients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004925.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Colin H Wilson, David A Rix, Derek M Manas

Abstract

Major urological complications (MUCs) after kidney transplantation contribute to patient morbidity and compromise graft function. The majority arise from the vesicoureteric anastomosis and present early after transplantation. Ureteric stents have been successfully used to treat such complications. A number of centres have adopted a policy of universal prophylactic stenting, at the time of graft implantation, to reduce the incidence of urine leaks and ureteric stenosis. Stents are associated with specific complications and some centres advocate a policy of only stenting selected anastomoses.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 107 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 17%
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Student > Postgraduate 12 11%
Other 11 10%
Other 26 24%
Unknown 14 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Computer Science 1 <1%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 24 22%

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 26 September 2020.
All research outputs
#10,265,790
of 16,096,312 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,742
of 11,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,813
of 264,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#95
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,096,312 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,396 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.8. 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 264,776 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.