↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Stent graft types for endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
Title
Stent graft types for endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008447.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

James MN Duffy, Rachel Rolph, Matthew Waltham

Abstract

The UK prevalence of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is estimated at 4.9% in over 65-year olds. Progressive and unpredictable enlargement can lead to rupture. Endovascular repair of AAAs involves a stent graft system being introduced via the femoral artery and manipulated within the aorta under radiological guidance. Following endograft deployment, a seal is formed at the proximal and distal landing zones to exclude the aneurysm sac from the circulation. With the increasing popularity of endovascular repair there has been an increase in the number of commercially available stent graft designs on the market. This is an update of the review first published in 2013. This review aimed to assess the different stent graft types for endovascular repair of AAA. The Cochrane Vascular Group Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (last searched February 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (2015, Issue 1). Trial databases were searched by the TSC for details of ongoing and unpublished studies. All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of stent graft types in the repair of AAAs were sought without language restriction and in consultation with the Cochrane Vascular Group TSC. We planned to conduct data collection and analysis in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. No studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. It was not possible to review the quality of the evidence in the absence of studies eligible for inclusion in the review. Unfortunately, no data exist regarding direct comparisons of the performance of different stent graft types. High quality randomised controlled trials evaluating stent graft types in abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair are required.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 19%
Other 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 19 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 29 April 2020.
All research outputs
#3,351,208
of 17,585,248 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,950
of 11,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,463
of 255,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#176
of 267 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,585,248 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 11,717 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. 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 255,581 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 267 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.