↓ Skip to main content

Fewer-than-four ports versus four ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Fewer-than-four ports versus four ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007109.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Jessica Vaughan, Michele Rossi, Brian R Davidson

Abstract

Traditionally, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is performed using two 10-mm ports and two 5-mm ports. Recently, a reduction in the number of ports has been suggested as a modification of the standard technique with a view to decreasing pain and improving cosmesis. The safety and effectiveness of using fewer-than-four ports has not yet been established.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 64 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 17%
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Other 7 11%
Researcher 5 8%
Other 15 23%
Unknown 10 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Psychology 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 10 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 24 July 2014.
All research outputs
#10,024,024
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,606
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,482
of 192,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#182
of 196 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 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 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 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 192,432 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 196 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.