↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

What is this page? Embed badge

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 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
106 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
182 Mendeley
Summary Twitter Dimensions citations
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
23450555
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.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 182 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 181 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 27 15%
Student > Master 24 13%
Researcher 20 11%
Student > Postgraduate 19 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 7%
Other 39 21%
Unknown 40 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 5%
Psychology 5 3%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 15 8%
Unknown 51 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 05 March 2013.
All research outputs
#18,331,227
of 22,699,621 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11,423
of 12,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,758
of 192,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#195
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,699,621 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 12,310 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. 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 192,986 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 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.

This page is hosted by Altmetric on behalf of Cochrane Library.