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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The HAC trial (harmonic for acute cholecystitis): a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial comparing the use of harmonic scalpel to monopolar diathermy for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in cases of acute cholecystitis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Emergency Surgery, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1749-7922-9-53 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fausto Catena, Salomone Di Saverio, Luca Ansaloni, Federico Coccolini, Massimo Sartelli, Carlo Vallicelli, Michele Cucchi, Antonio Tarasconi, Rodolfo Catena, Gian Luigi De’ Angelis, Hariscine Keng Abongwa, Daniel Lazzareschi, Antonio Pinna |
| Abstract |
The HARMONIC SCALPEL (H) is an advanced ultrasonic cutting and coagulating surgical device with important clinical advantages, such as: reduced ligature demand; greater precision due to minimal lateral thermal tissue damage; minimal smoke production; absence of electric corrents running through the patient. However, there are no prospective RCTs demonstrating the advantages of H compared to the conventional monopolar diathermy (MD) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in cases of acute cholecystitis (AC). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 12% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 18% |
| Unknown | 6 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 47% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 8 | 47% |
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 13 November 2014.
All research outputs
#17,731,702
of 22,770,070 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Emergency Surgery
#362
of 543 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,531
of 259,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Emergency Surgery
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,770,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 543 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 259,224 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.