| Title |
Single-stage procedure for the treatment of cholecysto-choledocolithiasis: a surgical procedures review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s146461 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aldo Bove, Raffaella Maria Di Renzo, Gino Palone, Domenica Testa, Valentina Malerba, Giuseppe Bongarzoni |
| Abstract |
While laparoscopic cholecystectomy is generally accepted as the treatment of choice for simple gallbladder stones, in cases in which common bile duct stones are also present, clinical and diagnostic elements, along with intraoperative findings, define the optimal means of treatment. All available options must be accessible to the surgical team which must necessarily be multidisciplinary and include a surgeon, an endoscopist, and a radiologist in order to identify the best option for a truly personalized surgery. This review describes the different techniques and approaches used based on distinctive recommendations and factors, according to the specific cases treated and the results achieved. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 19% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 13% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 56% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 6% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 19% |
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 06 March 2018.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#1,020
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#324,918
of 448,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#26
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 448,849 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.