↓ 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 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 138 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Other 11 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Student > Postgraduate 10 7%
Other 25 18%
Unknown 48 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Psychology 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 55 40%
Attention Score in Context

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
#16,292,673
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11,226
of 13,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,076
of 239,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#207
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 239,724 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.