↓ Skip to main content

2018 WSES/SIS-E consensus conference: recommendations for the management of skin and soft-tissue infections

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Emergency Surgery, December 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#45 of 443)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 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
2018 WSES/SIS-E consensus conference: recommendations for the management of skin and soft-tissue infections
Published in
World Journal of Emergency Surgery, December 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13017-018-0219-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Massimo Sartelli, Xavier Guirao, Timothy C. Hardcastle, Yoram Kluger, Marja. A. Boermeester, Kemal Raşa, Luca Ansaloni, Federico Coccolini, Philippe Montravers, Fikri M. Abu-Zidan, Michele Bartoletti, Matteo Bassetti, Offir Ben-Ishay, Walter L. Biffl, Osvaldo Chiara, Massimo Chiarugi, Raul Coimbra, Francesco Giuseppe De Rosa, Belinda De Simone, Salomone Di Saverio, Maddalena Giannella, George Gkiokas, Vladimir Khokha, Francesco M. Labricciosa, Ari Leppäniemi, Andrey Litvin, Ernest E. Moore, Ionut Negoi, Leonardo Pagani, Maddalena Peghin, Edoardo Picetti, Tadeja Pintar, Guntars Pupelis, Ines Rubio-Perez, Boris Sakakushev, Helmut Segovia-Lohse, Gabriele Sganga, Vishal Shelat, Michael Sugrue, Antonio Tarasconi, Cristian Tranà, Jan Ulrych, Pierluigi Viale, Fausto Catena

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 178 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 28 16%
Student > Postgraduate 19 11%
Other 19 11%
Researcher 16 9%
Student > Master 14 8%
Other 40 22%
Unknown 42 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 96 54%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 11 6%
Unknown 55 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 22 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,580,249
of 17,036,910 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Emergency Surgery
#45
of 443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,363
of 395,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Emergency Surgery
#7
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,036,910 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 395,296 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.