↓ Skip to main content

Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
131 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 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
Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003144.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cristiane B Neutzling, Suzana AS Lustosa, Igor M Proenca, Edina MK da Silva, Delcio Matos

Abstract

Previous systematic reviews comparing stapled and handsewn colorectal anastomosis that are available in the medical literature have not shown either technique to be superior. An update of this systematic review was performed to find out if there are any data that properly answer this question.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Italy 2 2%
Chile 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 123 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 17%
Student > Master 20 15%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 10%
Unspecified 13 10%
Other 48 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 88 66%
Unspecified 20 15%
Psychology 5 4%
Engineering 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 12 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 June 2019.
All research outputs
#10,381,148
of 13,605,192 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,511
of 10,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,741
of 121,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#88
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,605,192 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,664 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 121,643 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.