↓ 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 (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
161 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 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 134 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 127 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 18%
Student > Master 16 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 9%
Other 10 7%
Student > Postgraduate 10 7%
Other 38 28%
Unknown 24 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 57%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 34 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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
#3,299,533
of 17,353,889 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,916
of 11,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,433
of 108,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#20
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,353,889 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 108,677 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 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 61% of its contemporaries.