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 Effect of Acellular Dermal Matrix Use on Complication Rates in Tissue Expander/Implant Breast Reconstruction
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Plastic Surgery, May 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1097/sap.0b013e3181dba892 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Steven T. Lanier, Eric D. Wang, John J. Chen, Balvant P. Arora, Steven M. Katz, Mark A. Gelfand, Sami U. Khan, Alexander B. Dagum, Duc T. Bui |
| Abstract |
Tissue expander/implant breast reconstructions by 5 surgeons at a single institution from 2005 to 2008 were retrospectively identified and divided into 2 cohorts: use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM, n = 75) versus standard submuscular placement (n = 52). The ADM group had a statistically significant higher rate of infection (28.9% vs. 12.0%, P = 0.022), reoperation (25.0% vs. 8.0%, P = 0.011), expander explantation (19.2% vs. 5.3%, P = 0.020), and overall complications (46.2% vs. 22.7%, P = 0.007). When stratifying by breast size, a higher complication rate was not observed with the use of ADM in breasts less than 600 g, whereas ADM use in breasts larger than 600 g was associated with a statistically significant higher rate of infection when controlling for the occurrence of skin necrosis. The ADM cohort had a significantly higher mean initial tissue expander fill volume (256 mL vs. 74 mL, P < 0.001) and a significantly higher mean initial tissue expander fill ratio (49% vs. 17%, P < 0.001). Further work is needed to define the ideal patient population for ADM use in tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 84 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 18% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 20% |
| Unknown | 22 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 55% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 3% |
| Engineering | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 22 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 10 May 2022.
All research outputs
#5,240,151
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Plastic Surgery
#189
of 3,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,779
of 104,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Plastic Surgery
#7
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,909 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 104,705 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 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.