↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Fast track surgery versus conventional recovery strategies for colorectal surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
700 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
475 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Fast track surgery versus conventional recovery strategies for colorectal surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007635.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Willem R Spanjersberg, Jurrian Reurings, Frederik Keus, Cornelis JHM van Laarhoven

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 475 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Italy 3 <1%
Turkey 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Rwanda 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 460 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 79 17%
Researcher 52 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 10%
Other 45 9%
Student > Bachelor 42 9%
Other 112 24%
Unknown 99 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 239 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 52 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 3%
Social Sciences 10 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 1%
Other 34 7%
Unknown 123 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 22 November 2019.
All research outputs
#7,993,771
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,729
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,892
of 118,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#66
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 118,482 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.