↓ Skip to main content
What is this page? Embed badge

Laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy for live kidney donors

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
154 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
202 Mendeley
Summary Twitter Wikipedia Dimensions citations
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 nephrectomy for live kidney donors
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006124.pub2
Pubmed ID
22071829
Authors

Colin H Wilson, Aliu Sanni, David A Rix, Naeem A Soomro

Abstract

Waiting lists for kidney transplantation continue to grow and live organ donation has become more important as the number of brain stem dead cadaveric organ donors continues to fall. The major disincentive to potential kidney donors is the pain and morbidity associated with open surgery.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 202 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 195 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 34 17%
Student > Master 33 16%
Researcher 23 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 8%
Student > Postgraduate 14 7%
Other 43 21%
Unknown 39 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 103 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Psychology 6 3%
Social Sciences 5 2%
Other 18 9%
Unknown 47 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 June 2012.
All research outputs
#6,908,917
of 22,656,971 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,546
of 12,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,479
of 142,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#101
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,656,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 142,895 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.

This page is provided by Altmetric.