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 |
Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Surgery, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fsurg.2015.00054 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nasra N. Alam, Sunil K. Narang, Ferdinand Köckerling, Ian R. Daniels, Neil J. Smart |
| Abstract |
Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a recognized treatment for posterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The aim of this review is to provide a synopsis of the evidence for biological mesh use in VMR, the most widely recognized surgical technique for posterior compartment POP. A systematic search of PubMed was conducted using the search terms "VMR," "ventral mesh rectopexy," or "mesh rectopexy." Six studies were identified. About 268/324 patients underwent ventral rectopexy using biological mesh with a further 6 patients having a combination of synthetic and biological mesh. Recurrence was reported in 20 patients; however, 6 were from studies where data on biological mesh could not be extracted. There are no RCTs in VMR surgery and no studies have directly compared types of biological mesh. Cross-linked porcine dermal collagen is the most commonly used mesh and has not been associated with mesh erosion, infection, or fistulation in this review. The level of evidence available on the use of biological mesh in VMR is of low quality (level 4). Ventral mesh rectopexy has become prevalent for posterior compartment POP. The evidence base for its implementation is not strong and the quality of evidence to inform choice of mesh is poor. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 28 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 21% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 62% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 8 | 28% |
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 19 October 2015.
All research outputs
#18,429,163
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#919
of 2,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,066
of 283,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#9
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,864 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 283,771 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.