↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Fewer-than-four ports versus four ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
Title
Fewer-than-four ports versus four ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007109.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Jessica Vaughan, Michele Rossi, Brian R Davidson

Abstract

Traditionally, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is performed using two 10-mm ports and two 5-mm ports. Recently, a reduction in the number of ports has been suggested as a modification of the standard technique with a view to decreasing pain and improving cosmesis. The safety and effectiveness of using fewer-than-four ports has not yet been established.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 110 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Other 9 8%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 33 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Psychology 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 36 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 June 2022.
All research outputs
#13,720,669
of 21,991,334 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,238
of 12,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,404
of 208,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#187
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,991,334 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.8. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 208,638 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.