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 |
What Do We Know About Component Separation Techniques for Abdominal Wall Hernia Repair?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Surgery, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fsurg.2018.00024 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hubert Scheuerlein, Andreas Thiessen, Christine Schug-Pass, Ferdinand Köckerling |
| Abstract |
The component separation technique (CST) was introduced to abdominal wall reconstruction to treat large, complex hernias. It is very difficult to compare the published findings because of the vast number of technical modifications to CST as well as the heterogeneity of the patient population operated on with this technique. The main focus of the literature search conducted up to August 2017 in Medline and PubMed was on publications reporting comparative findings as well as on systematic reviews in order to formulate statements regarding the various CSTs. CST without mesh should no longer be performed because of too high recurrence rates. Open anterior CST has too high a surgical site occurrence rate and henceforth should only be conducted as endoscopic and perforator sparing anterior CST. Open posterior CST and posterior CST with transversus abdominis release (TAR) produce better results than open anterior CST. To date, no significant differences have been found between endoscopic anterior, perforator sparing anterior CST and posterior CST with transversus abdominis release. Robot-assisted posterior CST with TAR is the latest, very promising alternative. The systematic use of biologic meshes cannot be recommended for CST. CST should always be performed with mesh as endoscopic or perforator sparing anterior or posterior CST. Robot-assisted posterior CST with TAR is the latest development. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | 5% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 5% |
| Mexico | 2 | 5% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 2% |
| Czechia | 1 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Yemen | 1 | 2% |
| Tanzania, United Republic of | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 27 | 63% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 30 | 70% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 21% |
| Scientists | 3 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 15% |
| Researcher | 8 | 12% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 23 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 55% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 27 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 15 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,351,149
of 25,393,071 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#32
of 3,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,589
of 344,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#2
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,393,071 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,957 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 344,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.