↓ Skip to main content

Shouldice technique versus other open techniques for inguinal hernia repair

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
31 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Shouldice technique versus other open techniques for inguinal hernia repair
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001543.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruno Amato, Lorenzo Moja, Salvatore Panico, Giovanni Persico, Corrado Rispoli, Nicola Rocco, Ivan Moschetti

Abstract

Inguinal hernia repair is the most frequent operation in general surgery. There are several techniques: the Shouldice technique is sometimes considered the best method but different techniques are used as the "gold standard" for open hernia repair. Outcome measures, such as recurrence rates, complications and length of post operative stay, vary considerably among the various techniques.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 81 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Master 13 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 15%
Student > Postgraduate 10 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 11%
Other 19 23%
Unknown 7 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 68%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Computer Science 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 9 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 25 May 2019.
All research outputs
#1,067,138
of 15,340,588 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,996
of 11,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,900
of 126,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#13
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,340,588 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,162 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
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 126,295 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.