↓ Skip to main content

Retroperitoneal drainage versus no drainage after pelvic lymphadenectomy for the prevention of lymphocyst formation in patients with gynaecological malignancies

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Retroperitoneal drainage versus no drainage after pelvic lymphadenectomy for the prevention of lymphocyst formation in patients with gynaecological malignancies
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007387.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charoenkwan K, Kietpeerakool C

Abstract

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2010. Pelvic lymphadenectomy is associated with significant complications including lymphocyst formation and related morbidities. Retroperitoneal drainage using suction drains has been recommended as a method to prevent such complications. However, this policy has been challenged by the findings from recent studies.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 20%
Student > Master 3 20%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Professor 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 3 20%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 73%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Engineering 1 7%
Unknown 2 13%

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 27 August 2014.
All research outputs
#9,293,741
of 12,101,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,045
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,657
of 199,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#158
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,101,174 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 199,506 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 176 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.