↓ 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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
121 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
304 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, Bobby VM, Tan, Chuan Jin, Gurusamy, Kurinchi Selvan, Martin, David J, Kirk, Gareth, McKie, Lloyd, Diamond, Tom, Taylor, Mark A, Dasari, Bobby V M

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 297 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 49 16%
Other 41 13%
Student > Postgraduate 35 12%
Student > Master 35 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 10%
Other 70 23%
Unknown 45 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 186 61%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 3%
Social Sciences 7 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Other 22 7%
Unknown 61 20%

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 24 December 2020.
All research outputs
#5,625,780
of 18,009,382 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,033
of 11,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,591
of 276,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#91
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,009,382 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.4. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 276,510 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.

This page is provided by Altmetric.