↓ Skip to main content

Totally percutaneous versus standard femoral artery access for elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
3 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
Totally percutaneous versus standard femoral artery access for elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010185.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jackson A, Yeoh SE, Clarke M, Alexander Jackson, Su Ern Yeoh, Mike Clarke

Abstract

Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are a vascular condition with significant risk attached, particularly if they rupture. It is, therefore, critical to identify and repair these as an elective procedure before they rupture and require emergency surgery. Repair has traditionally been an open surgical technique that required a large incision across the abdomen. More recently endovascular aneurysm repairs (EVARs) have become a common alternative. In this procedure, the common femoral artery is exposed via a cut-down approach and a graft is introduced to the aneurysm in this way. This review examines a totally percutaneous approach to EVAR. This technique gives a minimally invasive approach to femoral artery access that may reduce groin wound complication rates and improve recovery time. The technique may, however, be less applicable in patients with, for example, groin scarring or arterial calcification.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 33%
Austria 1 33%
Unknown 1 33%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 567%
Researcher 11 367%
Student > Bachelor 8 267%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 267%
Unspecified 8 267%
Other 24 800%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 1600%
Unspecified 10 333%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 200%
Engineering 2 67%
Social Sciences 2 67%
Other 8 267%

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 01 August 2014.
All research outputs
#6,531,394
of 12,100,779 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,516
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,149
of 195,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#124
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,100,779 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 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 195,816 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 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.