↓ Skip to main content

Local versus general anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 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
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
Local versus general anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000126.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tanat Vaniyapong, Wilaiwan Chongruksut, Kittipan Rerkasem

Abstract

Carotid endarterectomy may significantly reduce the risk of stroke in people with recently symptomatic, severe carotid artery stenosis. However, there are significant perioperative risks that may be reduced by performing the operation under local rather than general anaesthetic. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1996, and previously updated in 2004 and 2008.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 110 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 22 19%
Student > Master 21 18%
Other 14 12%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 17 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Neuroscience 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 24 21%

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 23 January 2014.
All research outputs
#7,860,098
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,928
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,210
of 242,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#119
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 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 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 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 242,824 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 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.