↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Stapled versus handsewn methods for ileocolic anastomoses

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
196 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 Mendeley
Title
Stapled versus handsewn methods for ileocolic anastomoses
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004320.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pui Yee Grace Choy, Ian P Bissett, James G Docherty, Bryan R Parry, Arend Merrie, Anita Fitzgerald

Abstract

Ileocolic anastomoses are commonly performed for right-sided colon cancer and Crohn's disease. The anastomosis may be constructed using a linear cutter stapler or by suturing. Individual trials comparing stapled versus handsewn ileocolic anastomoses have found little difference in the complication rate but they have lacked adequate power to detect potential small difference. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2007.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 152 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 18%
Student > Master 20 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 8%
Other 11 7%
Other 38 24%
Unknown 37 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 85 53%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 50 31%

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 02 March 2021.
All research outputs
#3,606,591
of 20,398,654 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,170
of 12,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,395
of 117,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#19
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,398,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,053 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.1. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 117,148 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 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.