↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
116 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
197 Mendeley
Title
Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004778.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alvaro Sanabria, Maria Isabel Villegas, Carlos Hernando Morales Uribe

Abstract

Perforated peptic ulcer is a common abdominal disease that is treated by surgery. The development of laparoscopic surgery has changed the way to treat such abdominal surgical emergencies. The results of some clinical trials suggest that laparoscopic surgery could be a better strategy than open surgery in the correction of perforated peptic ulcer but the evidence is not strongly in favour for or against this intervention.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 196 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 13%
Student > Bachelor 26 13%
Researcher 20 10%
Student > Postgraduate 19 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 7%
Other 44 22%
Unknown 48 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 98 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 5%
Psychology 5 3%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 18 9%
Unknown 60 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 March 2013.
All research outputs
#20,947,998
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12,237
of 13,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,075
of 205,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#195
of 209 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,136 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 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 205,943 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 209 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.