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 |
Centrifugation versus PureGraft for fatgrafting to the breast after breast-conserving therapy
|
---|---|
Published in |
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, June 2014
|
DOI | 10.1186/1477-7819-12-178 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Ondrej Mestak, Andrej Sukop, Yu-Sheng Hsueh, Martin Molitor, Jan Mestak, Jana Matejovska, Lucie Zarubova |
Abstract |
Breast-conserving treatment (BCT) leads to a progressive and deteriorating breast deformity. Fatgrafting is ideal for breast reconstruction after BCT. The most frequently utilized technique for fat processing is centrifugation. The PureGraft device (Cytori Therapeutics, San Diego, CA, USA) is a new method that involves washing and filtering the fat to prepare the graft. We compared the subjective and objective outcomes of two fat-processing methods, centrifugation and PureGraft filtration. |
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 % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Brazil | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 90 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 13 | 14% |
Researcher | 12 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 11 | 12% |
Other | 10 | 11% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 9% |
Other | 15 | 16% |
Unknown | 22 | 24% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 46% |
Psychology | 8 | 9% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
Unspecified | 2 | 2% |
Other | 9 | 10% |
Unknown | 23 | 25% |
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 04 June 2014.
All research outputs
#18,373,576
of 22,757,090 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#1,013
of 2,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,865
of 228,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#32
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,090 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 2,042 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 228,027 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.