↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
186 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
204 Mendeley
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 204 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%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 194 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 16%
Student > Master 28 14%
Student > Bachelor 24 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 9%
Other 51 25%
Unknown 33 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 111 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 5%
Psychology 6 3%
Engineering 5 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 20 10%
Unknown 47 23%

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
#8,920,276
of 15,298,914 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,029
of 11,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,799
of 126,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#77
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,298,914 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,167 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.9. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 126,624 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.