↓ Skip to main content

Transabdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) vs totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic techniques for inguinal hernia repair.

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
142 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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
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

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Thailand 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Unknown 86 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 19%
Researcher 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 16%
Student > Postgraduate 10 11%
Other 9 10%
Other 26 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 71%
Unspecified 10 11%
Engineering 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 7 8%

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
#3,607,841
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,876
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,399
of 265,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#100
of 152 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 265,030 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 152 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.