↓ Skip to main content

Intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation versus no intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation versus no intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007337.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Myura Nagendran, Gian Piero Guerrini, Clare D Toon, Murat Zinnuroglu, Brian R Davidson

Abstract

While laparoscopic cholecystectomy is generally considered less painful than open surgery, pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after day surgery and overnight stay laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety and effectiveness of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy is unknown.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Croatia 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Turkey 1 1%
Unknown 70 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 22%
Researcher 12 16%
Other 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 11%
Other 24 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 59%
Unspecified 10 14%
Psychology 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 11 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 08 August 2014.
All research outputs
#10,024,024
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,612
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,218
of 193,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#187
of 201 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 193,221 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 201 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.