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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
Successful Treatment of Colorectal Anastomotic Stricture by Using Sphincterotomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Surgery, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fsurg.2014.00022 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tzu-An Chen, Wei-Lun Hsu |
| Abstract |
Colorectal or colocolic anastomotic stricture is a common complication after colorectal surgery. Traditionally, endoscopic balloon dilation technique was used for those patients with symptomatic stricture. The use of electroincision (radial incisions of the scar) along with pneumatic balloon dilation was reported with good result in literature. We present a novel method for relieving colorectal anastomotic stricture by using sphincterotomes, which is indicated for use in the cannulation of the biliary ducts and the transendoscopic sphincterotomy of the papilla of Vater and the sphincter of Oddi. The use of sphincterotomes in upper GI tract anastomotic stricture was reported before, but the experience in managing lower GI tract was pending. Based on our preliminary report, sphincterotomes can be an effective and safe treatment option for colorectal anastomotic stricture. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 40% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 20% |
| Other | 1 | 10% |
| Researcher | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 80% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 1 | 10% |
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 20 June 2014.
All research outputs
#18,373,874
of 22,757,541 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#912
of 2,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,113
of 228,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#8
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,541 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,816 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 228,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.