↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Continuous local anaesthetic wound infusion for postoperative pain after midline laparotomy for colorectal resection in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2019
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 (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
185 Mendeley
Title
Continuous local anaesthetic wound infusion for postoperative pain after midline laparotomy for colorectal resection in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2019
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012310.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sophie S Liang, Andrew J Ying, Eshan T Affan, Benedict F Kakala, Giovanni FM Strippoli, Alan Bullingham, Helen Currow, David W Dunn, Zeigfeld Yu‐Ting Yeh

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 185 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 15%
Student > Bachelor 17 9%
Other 15 8%
Researcher 11 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 5%
Other 29 16%
Unknown 77 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 10%
Psychology 5 3%
Computer Science 3 2%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 18 10%
Unknown 87 47%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 March 2020.
All research outputs
#5,315,177
of 25,462,162 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,339
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,380
of 371,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#124
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,462,162 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 371,144 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.