| Title |
Retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd010373.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fan Mei, Kaiyan Hu, Bing Zhao, Qianqian Gao, Fei Chen, Li Zhao, Mei Wu, Liyuan Feng, Zhe Wang, Jinwei Yang, Weiyi Zhang, Bin Ma |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Ecuador | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 80 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 5% |
| Researcher | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 46 | 57% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 49 | 61% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 29 June 2021.
All research outputs
#15,231,614
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,912
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,693
of 457,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#141
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 457,598 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.