| 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 |
| Abstract |
In recent years the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) postoperative pathway in (ileo-)colorectal surgery, aiming at improving perioperative care and decreasing postoperative complications, has become more common. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 462 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 | 447 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 79 | 17% |
| Researcher | 52 | 11% |
| Other | 45 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 43 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 42 | 9% |
| Other | 112 | 24% |
| Unknown | 89 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 240 | 52% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 52 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 1% |
| Other | 31 | 7% |
| Unknown | 112 | 24% |
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
#6,926,808
of 22,713,403 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,556
of 12,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,986
of 105,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#60
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,713,403 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,313 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 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 105,879 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 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.