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 iatrogenic injury of double vena cava due to misdiagnosis during the radical nephroureterectomy and cystectomy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12957-015-0469-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ye-Qing Mao, Shao-Xing Zhu, Wei Zhang |
| Abstract |
Double inferior vena cava (d-IVC) is a subtype of vascular anomaly that rarely needs treatment. Here, we present a rare case of d-IVC accompanied with concurrent renal pelvis and bladder carcinoma. Due to misdiagnosis, the anomalous left inferior vena cava (IVC) entering the left renal vein was mistaken as the gonadal vein and was then severed during the radical nephroureterectomy. Fortunately, the injured left IVC was recognized correctly during the following cystectomy. The vascular reconstruction operation was performed to recanalize the left iliac veins by anastomosing the ligated vascular stump to the right IVC in an 'end-to-side' way. During the hospitalization, the patient was treated with 'low molecular weight heparin' and then warfarin to ensure an ideal international normalized ratio. He recovered well from the surgery. A meticulous and comprehensive analysis of radiographic imaging is critical to avoid misdiagnosis of d-IVC. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 17 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 11% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 39% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 56% |
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 February 2015.
All research outputs
#15,322,159
of 22,789,076 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#609
of 2,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,363
of 357,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#40
of 150 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,076 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 2.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 357,813 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 150 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.