↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Embed badge What is this page?

Open Preperitoneal Techniques versus Lichtenstein Repair for elective Inguinal Hernias

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 Mendeley

What is this page?

Summary Twitter Dimensions citations
Title
Open Preperitoneal Techniques versus Lichtenstein Repair for elective Inguinal Hernias
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008034.pub2
Pubmed ID
22786511
Authors

Wouter Willaert, Dirk De Bacquer, Xavier Rogiers, Roberto Troisi, Frederik Berrevoet

Abstract

Current techniques for inguinal hernia repair show similar recurrence rates. Therefore, recurrence is no longer the main issue discussed when considering improving the current standards for groin hernia repair. Post surgical chronic pain represents a major, largely unrecognised clinical problem. Consequently, there is a need to not only decrease an extensive dissection in the inguinal canal with less manipulation of the inguinal nerves, but also to minimize the interaction between the mesh and major surrounding structures. As a result, placing the mesh in the preperitoneal space is a valuable option.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 133 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 17%
Student > Bachelor 18 13%
Student > Postgraduate 13 10%
Researcher 12 9%
Other 7 5%
Other 31 23%
Unknown 30 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Unspecified 5 4%
Computer Science 2 1%
Social Sciences 2 1%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 39 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 August 2012.
All research outputs
#15,915,255
of 19,812,393 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11,052
of 11,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,942
of 141,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#95
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,812,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,972 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.7. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 141,857 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.

This page is hosted by Altmetric on behalf of Cochrane Library.