↓ Skip to main content

The history of risk: a review

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Emergency Surgery, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The history of risk: a review
Published in
World Journal of Emergency Surgery, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13017-017-0125-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip F. Stahel, Ivor S. Douglas, Todd F. VanderHeiden, Sebastian Weckbach

Abstract

In the USA alone, around 22 million patients annually discuss the need for surgical procedure with their surgeon. On a global scale, more than 200 million patients are exposed to the risk of undergoing a surgical procedure every year. A crucial part of the informed consent process for surgery is the understanding of risk, the probability of complications, and the predicted occurrence of adverse events. Ironically, risk quantification, risk stratification, and risk management are not necessarily part of a surgeon's core skillset, considering the lengthy surgical training curriculum towards technical excellence. The present review was designed to provide a concise historic perspective on the evolution of our current understanding of risk and probability, which represent the key underlying pillars of the shared decision-making process between surgeons and patients when discussing surgical treatment options.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Postgraduate 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 10 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Other 10 25%
Unknown 14 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 14 April 2017.
All research outputs
#2,701,754
of 23,575,882 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Emergency Surgery
#88
of 569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,079
of 308,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Emergency Surgery
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,575,882 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 569 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
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 308,947 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.