| Title |
Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd001544.pub4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katia F Güenaga, Delcio Matos, Peer Wille‐Jørgensen |
| Abstract |
The presence of bowel contents during colorectal surgery has been related to anastomotic leakage, but the belief that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is an efficient agent against leakage and infectious complications is based on observational data and expert opinions only.An enema before the rectal surgery to clean the rectum and facilitate the manipulation for the mechanical anastomosis is used for many surgeons. This is analysed separately |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Yemen | 1 | 17% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| Colombia | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 344 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 4 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 337 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 39 | 11% |
| Other | 38 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 35 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 30 | 9% |
| Other | 80 | 23% |
| Unknown | 92 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 189 | 55% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 2% |
| Engineering | 4 | 1% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | <1% |
| Other | 21 | 6% |
| Unknown | 103 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 15 October 2021.
All research outputs
#8,221,102
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,904
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,504
of 136,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#73
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 136,568 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.