↓ Skip to main content

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus intraoperative cholangiography for diagnosis of common bile duct stones

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus intraoperative cholangiography for diagnosis of common bile duct stones
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010339.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Vanja Giljaca, Yemisi Takwoingi, David Higgie, Goran Poropat, Davor Štimac, Brian R Davidson

Abstract

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) are tests used in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. There has been no systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP and IOC.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Unknown 122 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 18 15%
Student > Master 18 15%
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Other 41 33%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 61%
Unspecified 23 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 1 <1%

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 11 August 2015.
All research outputs
#7,554,574
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,851
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,209
of 215,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#205
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 215,861 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.