↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Damage control surgery for abdominal trauma

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Damage control surgery for abdominal trauma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007438.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roberto Cirocchi, Alessandro Montedori, Eriberto Farinella, Isabella Bonacini, Ludovica Tagliabue, Iosief Abraha

Abstract

Trauma is one of the leading causes of death in any age group. The 'lethal triad' of acidosis, hypothermia, and coagulopathy has been recognized as a significant cause of death in patients with traumatic injuries. In order to prevent the lethal triad two factors are essential, early control of bleeding and prevention of further heat loss. In patients with major abdominal trauma, damage control surgery (DCS) avoids extensive procedures on unstable patients, stabilizes potentially fatal problems at initial operation, and applies staged surgery after successful initial resuscitation. It is not currently known whether DCS is superior to immediate surgery for patients with major abdominal trauma.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 98 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 19%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Student > Postgraduate 10 10%
Other 9 9%
Researcher 7 7%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 29 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 14%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 30 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 23 December 2020.
All research outputs
#1,428,935
of 19,822,123 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,477
of 11,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,115
of 171,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#25
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,822,123 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 171,343 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.