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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Routine intraoperative ureteric stenting for kidney transplant recipients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004925.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Colin H Wilson, David A Rix, Derek M Manas |
| Abstract |
Major urological complications (MUCs) after kidney transplantation contribute to patient morbidity and compromise graft function. The majority arise from the vesicoureteric anastomosis and present early after transplantation. Ureteric stents have been successfully used to treat such complications. A number of centres have adopted a policy of universal prophylactic stenting, at the time of graft implantation, to reduce the incidence of urine leaks and ureteric stenosis. Stents are associated with specific complications and some centres advocate a policy of only stenting selected anastomoses. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 165 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 26 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 10% |
| Other | 14 | 8% |
| Researcher | 14 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 8% |
| Other | 36 | 22% |
| Unknown | 48 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 83 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Decision Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 4% |
| Unknown | 59 | 35% |
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 26 September 2020.
All research outputs
#18,169,537
of 26,580,681 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11,710
of 13,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,871
of 211,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#247
of 279 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,580,681 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,247 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.6. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 211,581 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 279 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.