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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The usefulness of flexible cystoscopy for preventing double-J stent malposition after laparoscopic ureterolithotomy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Urology, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12894-017-0232-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jae-Yoon Kim, Seok-Ho Kang, Jun Cheon, Jeong-Gu Lee, Je-Jong Kim, Sung-Gu Kang |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of flexible cystoscopy in preventing malpositioning of the ureteral stent after laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in male patients. From April 2009 to June 2015, 97 male patients with stones >1.8 cm in the upper ureter underwent intracorporeal double-J stenting of the ureter after laparoscopic ureterolithotomy performed by four different surgeons. In the last 50 patients who underwent laparoscopic ureterolithotomy flexible cystoscopy was performed through the urethral route to confirm the position of the double-J stent, while in the first 47 correct positioning of the stent was confirmed through postoperative KUB. The demographic data and perioperative outcomes were reviewed retrospectively. Penalized logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the effects of flexible cystoscopy. Upward malpositioning of the ureteral stent was found in 9 of the 47 (19.1%) patients who underwent surgery without flexible cystoscopy. Among the 50 most recent patients who underwent surgery with flexible cystoscopy through the urethral route, upward malpositioning was observed in 10 (20%) patients. The factors preventing upward malpositioning of the double-J catheter in multivariate analysis were surgeon (p = 0.039) and use of flexible cystoscopy (p = 0.008). Flexible cystoscopy is a simple, safe, quick, and effective method to identify and correct malpositioning of double-J stents, especially in male patients. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Registry on May 11, 2017 (retrospective registration) with a trial registration number of NCT03150446 . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 14% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Engineering | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 43% |
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 18 June 2017.
All research outputs
#20,428,633
of 22,981,247 outputs
Outputs from BMC Urology
#652
of 754 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#275,923
of 317,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Urology
#12
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,981,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 754 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 317,090 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.