| Title |
Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd005200.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sandra Vennix, Loeki Pelzers, Nicole Bouvy, Geerard L. Beets, Jean‐Pierre Pierie, Theo Wiggers, Stephanie Breukink |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 23% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| France | 1 | 8% |
| Egypt | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 54% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 77% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 15% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 339 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 332 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 44 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 43 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 41 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 8% |
| Other | 24 | 7% |
| Other | 79 | 23% |
| Unknown | 80 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 165 | 49% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 30 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 23 | 7% |
| Unknown | 100 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 17 August 2018.
All research outputs
#5,146,574
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,073
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,546
of 240,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#133
of 206 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 240,034 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 206 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.