↓ Skip to main content

Endovascular repair versus open repair for inflammatory abdominal aortic aneurysms

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Endovascular repair versus open repair for inflammatory abdominal aortic aneurysms
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010313.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Capoccia, Vicente Riambau

Abstract

Inflammatory abdominal aortic aneurysm (IAAA) is a rare but potentially life-threatening condition characterised by marked thickening of the aortic wall, peri-aneurysmal and retroperitoneal fibrosis, and dense adhesions of adjacent abdominal organs. The pathogenesis of IAAA remains an enigma. The main aim of invasive or surgical therapy of AAAs is prevention or correction of aortic rupture. Prevention or treatment of AAA rupture by open or endovascular repair is proven by numerous studies published in the literature. Treatment of IAAA poses a different challenge to surgeons compared with traditional atherosclerotic AAA because of the potential for iatrogenic injury in open repair or, alternatively, potential increased inflammatory response to endoprosthesis implantation. To assess the effects of elective endovascular versus open repair for inflammatory abdominal aortic aneurysms. The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (April 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) (2015, Issue 3). The TSC searched trial databases for details of ongoing and unpublished studies. We sought all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and controlled clinical trials comparing results of elective endovascular or open repair of IAAAs without language restriction. Both review authors independently assessed studies identified for potential inclusion in the review. We planned to conduct data collection and analysis in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions. We identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria. We found no published RCTs, quasi RCTs or controlled clinical trials comparing open repair and elective endovascular repair for IAAA, assessing immediate (30-day), intermediate (up to one-year follow-up) and long-term (more than one-year follow-up) mortality or complications rates. High-quality studies evaluating the best treatment for inflammatory abdominal aneurysm repair are required.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Unknown 13 93%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1 7%
Unknown 13 93%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 26 April 2015.
All research outputs
#3,151,935
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,648
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,820
of 226,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#155
of 226 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
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 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 226,037 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 226 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.