↓ Skip to main content

Management of intraoperative hemorrhage during NOTES®: a prospective, randomized comparison

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
6 Mendeley
Title
Management of intraoperative hemorrhage during NOTES®: a prospective, randomized comparison
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, January 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00464-012-2677-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Byron F. Santos, Stephen M. Plachta, Nathaniel J. Soper, Eric S. Hungness

Abstract

The optimal strategy to manage intraoperative hemorrhage during NOTES is unknown. A randomized comparison of three instruments for hemorrhage control was performed [prototype endoscopic bipolar hemostasis forceps (BELA) vs. prototype endoscopic clip (E-CLIP) applier versus laparoscopic clip (L-CLIP) applier].

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 33%
Student > Bachelor 1 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 17%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 17%
Student > Postgraduate 1 17%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 17%
Engineering 1 17%
Unknown 1 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 December 2013.
All research outputs
#6,600,623
of 12,229,156 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#1,649
of 3,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,743
of 210,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#25
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,229,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,571 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 210,279 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 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 60% of its contemporaries.