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 |
Bleeding complications in cholecystectomy: a register study of over 22 000 cholecystectomies in Finland
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Surgery, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12893-015-0085-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
S. Suuronen, A. Kivivuori, J. Tuimala, H. Paajanen |
| Abstract |
Major bleeding is rare but among the most serious complications of laparoscopic surgery. Still very little is known on bleeding complications and related blood component use in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The aim of this study is to compare bleeding complications, transfusion rates and related costs between LC and open cholecystectomy (OC). Data concerning LCs and OCs and related blood component use between 2002 and 2007 were collected from existing computerized medical records (Finnish Red Cross Register) of ten Finnish hospital districts. Register data included 17175 LCs and 4942 OCs. In the LC group, 1.3 % of the patients received red blood cell (RBC) transfusion compared to 13 % of the patients in the OC group (p < 0.001). Similarly, the proportions of patients with platelet (0.1 % vs. 1.2 %, p < 0.001) and fresh frozen plasma (FFP) products (0.5 % vs. 5.8 %) transfusions were respectively higher in the OC group than in the LC group. The mean transfused dose of RBCs, PTLs and FFP product Octaplas® or the mean cost of the transfused blood components did not differ significantly between the LC and OC groups. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was associated with lower transfusion rates of blood components compared to open surgery. The severity of bleeding complications may not differ substantially between LC and OC. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 22% |
| Chile | 1 | 11% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 55 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 20% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Researcher | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 14 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 54% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 20 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 19 October 2015.
All research outputs
#5,972,976
of 22,821,814 outputs
Outputs from BMC Surgery
#115
of 1,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,598
of 264,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Surgery
#4
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,821,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,320 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 264,389 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.