↓ Skip to main content

Early routine endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography strategy versus early conservative management strategy in acute gallstone pancreatitis.

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
100 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Early routine endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography strategy versus early conservative management strategy in acute gallstone pancreatitis.
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009779.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tse F, Yuan Y

Abstract

The role and timing of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in acute gallstone pancreatitis remains controversial. A number of clinical trials and meta-analyses have provided conflicting evidence.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 150 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 5%
Student > Master 7 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 4%
Unspecified 5 3%
Student > Postgraduate 4 3%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 109 72%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 18%
Unspecified 9 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 <1%
Psychology 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 109 72%

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 17 November 2015.
All research outputs
#2,932,037
of 12,101,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,210
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,121
of 111,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#52
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,101,174 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. 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 111,337 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.