↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Wound infiltration with local anaesthetic agents for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 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
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
212 Mendeley
Title
Wound infiltration with local anaesthetic agents for laparoscopic cholecystectomy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007049.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sofronis Loizides, Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Myura Nagendran, Michele Rossi, Gian Piero Guerrini, Brian R Davidson

Abstract

While laparoscopic cholecystectomy is generally considered to be less painful than open surgery, pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after day surgery resulting in overnight stay following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety and effectiveness of local anaesthetic wound infiltration in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy is not known.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 211 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 15%
Researcher 20 9%
Student > Postgraduate 20 9%
Student > Bachelor 20 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 8%
Other 53 25%
Unknown 51 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 92 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 8%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Unspecified 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 24 11%
Unknown 59 28%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 April 2015.
All research outputs
#15,303,896
of 22,760,687 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,779
of 12,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,134
of 221,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#209
of 232 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,760,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. 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 221,249 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 232 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.