↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
188 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
397 Mendeley
Title
Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003327.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bobby VM Dasari, Chuan Jin Tan, Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, David J Martin, Gareth Kirk, Lloyd McKie, Tom Diamond, Mark A Taylor

Abstract

Between 10% to 18% of people undergoing cholecystectomy for gallstones have common bile duct stones. Treatment of the bile duct stones can be conducted as open cholecystectomy plus open common bile duct exploration or laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC + LCBDE) versus pre- or post-cholecystectomy endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in two stages, usually combined with either sphincterotomy (commonest) or sphincteroplasty (papillary dilatation) for common bile duct clearance. The benefits and harms of the different approaches are not known.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 397 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 390 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 54 14%
Other 49 12%
Student > Postgraduate 44 11%
Student > Master 39 10%
Student > Bachelor 34 9%
Other 90 23%
Unknown 87 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 222 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 2%
Social Sciences 7 2%
Unspecified 7 2%
Other 30 8%
Unknown 106 27%
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 24 December 2020.
All research outputs
#8,166,399
of 25,383,278 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,412
of 12,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,070
of 318,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#162
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,383,278 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 12,915 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.1. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 318,563 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 210 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.