Title |
Minimally invasive discectomy versus microdiscectomy/open discectomy for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation
|
---|---|
Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2014
|
DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd010328.pub2 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Mohammad R Rasouli, Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar, Farhad Shokraneh, Maziar Moradi-Lakeh, Roger Chou |
Abstract |
Microdiscectomy or open discectomy (MD/OD) are the standard procedures for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation and they involve removal of the portion of the intervertebral disc compressing the nerve root or spinal cord (or both) with or without the aid of a headlight loupe or microscope magnification. Potential advantages of newer minimally invasive discectomy (MID) procedures over standard MD/OD include less blood loss, less postoperative pain, shorter hospitalisation and earlier return to work. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 2 | 29% |
Spain | 1 | 14% |
United States | 1 | 14% |
Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 400 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Colombia | 2 | <1% |
Brazil | 2 | <1% |
United States | 1 | <1% |
Saudi Arabia | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 394 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 55 | 14% |
Student > Master | 52 | 13% |
Researcher | 49 | 12% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 34 | 9% |
Student > Postgraduate | 26 | 7% |
Other | 76 | 19% |
Unknown | 108 | 27% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 154 | 39% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 40 | 10% |
Neuroscience | 12 | 3% |
Psychology | 11 | 3% |
Sports and Recreations | 8 | 2% |
Other | 48 | 12% |
Unknown | 127 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 31 May 2023.
All research outputs
#4,275,503
of 23,743,910 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,824
of 12,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,930
of 239,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#132
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,743,910 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,753 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 239,332 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.