↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Hybrid repair versus conventional open repair for aortic arch dissection

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Hybrid repair versus conventional open repair for aortic arch dissection
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2021
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012920.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edel P Kavanagh, Sherif Sultan, Fionnuala Jordan, Ala Elhelali, Declan Devane, Dave Veerasingam, Niamh Hynes

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Professor 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 23%
Psychology 2 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 15%
Unknown 6 46%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 August 2021.
All research outputs
#11,158,971
of 19,476,606 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,562
of 11,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,181
of 334,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#24
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,476,606 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,940 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.5. 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 334,091 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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.