| Title |
Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003144.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cristiane B Neutzling, Suzana AS Lustosa, Igor M Proenca, Edina MK da Silva, Delcio Matos |
| Abstract |
Previous systematic reviews comparing stapled and handsewn colorectal anastomosis that are available in the medical literature have not shown either technique to be superior. An update of this systematic review was performed to find out if there are any data that properly answer this question. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 33% |
| Mexico | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 288 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 1% |
| Italy | 2 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 278 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 40 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 33 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 33 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 8% |
| Other | 21 | 7% |
| Other | 76 | 26% |
| Unknown | 63 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 144 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 9 | 3% |
| Psychology | 8 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 29 | 10% |
| Unknown | 81 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 June 2019.
All research outputs
#16,042,687
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,231
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,476
of 258,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#150
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 258,519 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.