↓ Skip to main content

Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
461 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
194 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
Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2006
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006231
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frederik Keus, Jeroen de Jong, H G Gooszen, C JHM Laarhoven

Abstract

Cholecystectomy is one of the most frequently performed operations. Open cholecystectomy has been the gold standard for over 100 years. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was introduced in the 1980s.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 194 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Morocco 1 <1%
Unknown 190 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 36 19%
Student > Postgraduate 30 15%
Student > Master 30 15%
Researcher 19 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 7%
Other 43 22%
Unknown 22 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 121 62%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 5%
Psychology 5 3%
Engineering 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 13 7%
Unknown 37 19%

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 22 November 2019.
All research outputs
#8,968,594
of 16,254,342 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,033
of 11,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,373
of 291,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#197
of 241 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,254,342 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,453 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.1. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 291,817 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 241 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.