↓ Skip to main content

Wound infiltration with local anaesthetic agents for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 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
Wound infiltration with local anaesthetic agents for laparoscopic cholecystectomy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007049.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sofronis Loizides, Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Myura Nagendran, Michele Rossi, Gian Piero Guerrini, Brian R Davidson

Abstract

While laparoscopic cholecystectomy is generally considered to be less painful than open surgery, pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after day surgery resulting in overnight stay following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety and effectiveness of local anaesthetic wound infiltration in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy is not known.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Unknown 104 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 18%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Postgraduate 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Other 11 10%
Other 39 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 62%
Unspecified 14 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Other 11 10%

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 24 April 2015.
All research outputs
#7,230,428
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,520
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,783
of 193,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#167
of 198 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 193,763 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 198 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.