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 |
Biological Meshes for Inguinal Hernia Repair – Review of the Literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Surgery, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fsurg.2015.00048 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ferdinand Köckerling, Nasra N. Alam, Sunil K. Narang, Ian R. Daniels, Neil J. Smart |
| Abstract |
Biological meshes are a potential alternative to the synthetic meshes to avoid complications and are used in a contaminated field for incarcerated inguinal hernias. The clinical experiences gained with biological meshes for repair of inguinal hernias are presented in this review. In a literature search of the Medline database using the key word "Biological mesh," 2,277 citations were found. There remained 14 studies in which biological meshes had been used to repair inguinal hernias. In prospective randomized trials, the use of polypropylene vs. biological meshes was compared in open inguinal hernia repair. There was no difference in the recurrence rate, but differences were observed in the postsurgical pain incidence in favor of the biological mesh. In the remaining retrospective studies, the recurrence rates were also acceptable. The biological mesh was used successfully in a potentially contaminated setting. Inguinal hernias can be repaired with biological meshes with reasonable recurrence rate, also as an alternative in a potentially contaminated field. |
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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 38 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 41% |
| Materials Science | 2 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 15 | 38% |
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 15 September 2015.
All research outputs
#18,426,826
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#919
of 2,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,752
of 268,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#6
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 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 2,861 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 268,887 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.