↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Surgery versus non‐surgical treatment for bronchiectasis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2000
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
9 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Surgery versus non‐surgical treatment for bronchiectasis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2000
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002180
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chris J Warburton, John A Corless

Abstract

Standard treatment for bronchiectasis comprises postural drainage and various regimes of antibiotic therapy. If the disease is confined to localised areas of lung, surgical resection of the affected segments is often performed. To assess the benefit of surgical resection compared with standard ("conservative") treatment. The Cochrane Airways Group trials register derived from MEDLINE, EMBASE and hand searching of major journals was searched using the terms [bronchiect* AND surg* OR resection OR lobect* OR pneumonect* OR segementect*]. Only randomised, controlled trials were considered The titles, abstracts and citations were independently reviewed by the two reviewers to assess potential relevance for full review. STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS Not applicable No randomised or controlled clinical trials were found, other than case series or case-controlled studies. Surgical treatment of bronchiectasis is widely used, but there appear to be no randomised controlled trials. It is not possible to provide an unbiased estimate of its benefit compared to conservative therapy.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Lecturer 3 7%
Librarian 2 4%
Unspecified 2 4%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 18 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 35%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Unspecified 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 20 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 September 2020.
All research outputs
#8,571,053
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,070
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,709
of 40,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#14
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. 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 40,715 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.