↓ Skip to main content

Vascular Shunts in Civilian Trauma

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Surgery, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Vascular Shunts in Civilian Trauma
Published in
Frontiers in Surgery, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fsurg.2017.00039
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adham N. Abou Ali, Karim M. Salem, Louis H. Alarcon, Graciela Bauza, Emmanuel Pikoulis, Rabih A. Chaer, Efthymios D. Avgerinos

Abstract

Experience with temporary intravascular shunts (TIVS) for vessel injury comes from the military sector and while the indications might be clear in geographically isolated and under resourced war zones, this may be an uncommon scenario in civilian trauma. Data supporting TIVS use in civilian trauma have been extrapolated from the military literature where it demonstrated improved life and limb salvage. Few non-comparative studies from the civilian literature have also revealed similar favorable outcomes. Still, TIVS placement in civilian vascular injuries is uncommon and by some debatable given the absence of clear indications for placement, the potential for TIVS-related complications, the widespread resources for immediate and definitive vascular repair, and the need for curtailing costs and optimizing resources. This article reviews the current evidence and the role of TIVS in contemporary civilian trauma management.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

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.
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.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 10%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 15 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 51%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Unknown 18 46%
Attention Score in Context

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 July 2017.
All research outputs
#18,562,247
of 22,990,068 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#943
of 2,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,327
of 315,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#5
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,990,068 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 2,965 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 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 315,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.