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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Transabdominal pre‐peritoneal (TAPP) vs totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic techniques for inguinal hernia repair.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2005
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004703.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Beverly L Wake, Kirsty McCormack, Cynthia Fraser, Luke Vale, Juan Perez, Adrian Grant |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 1 | 25% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Thailand | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 186 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 12% |
| Researcher | 19 | 10% |
| Other | 12 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 46 | 24% |
| Unknown | 53 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 92 | 49% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 3% |
| Engineering | 5 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 17 | 9% |
| Unknown | 60 | 32% |
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 13 September 2017.
All research outputs
#8,510,305
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,070
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,085
of 158,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#25
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 158,452 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.