↓ 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

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
612 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
400 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

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.

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 400 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%
Canada 2 <1%
Turkey 2 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Rwanda 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 385 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 74 19%
Researcher 49 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 10%
Other 41 10%
Student > Bachelor 39 10%
Other 101 25%
Unknown 55 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 224 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 46 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 3%
Social Sciences 9 2%
Psychology 5 1%
Other 26 7%
Unknown 78 20%

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
#5,243,520
of 17,389,828 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,720
of 11,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,660
of 163,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#80
of 150 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,389,828 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,668 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 163,417 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 150 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.