↓ Skip to main content
Embed badge What is this page?

Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley

What is this page?

Summary Twitter Dimensions citations
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
Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003327.pub4
Pubmed ID
24338858
Authors

Dasari BV, Tan CJ, Gurusamy KS, Martin DJ, Kirk G, McKie L, Diamond T, Taylor MA

Abstract

Between 10% to 18% of people undergoing cholecystectomy for gallstones have common bile duct stones. Treatment of the bile duct stones can be conducted as open cholecystectomy plus open common bile duct exploration or laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC + LCBDE) versus pre- or post-cholecystectomy endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in two stages, usually combined with either sphincterotomy (commonest) or sphincteroplasty (papillary dilatation) for common bile duct clearance. The benefits and harms of the different approaches are not known.

View on publisher site

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 28%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 57%
Unspecified 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 6 15%

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 16 December 2013.
All research outputs
#9,083,451
of 11,346,364 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,392
of 9,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,952
of 196,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#126
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,346,364 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 9,069 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 196,013 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 132 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.

This page is provided by Altmetric.