↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Chemical pleurodesis versus surgical intervention for persistent and recurrent pneumothoraces in cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
Title
Chemical pleurodesis versus surgical intervention for persistent and recurrent pneumothoraces in cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007481.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Reshma Amin, Peadar G Noone, Felix Ratjen

Abstract

Pneumothorax is a potentially life-threatening complication for people with cystic fibrosis. Spontaneous pneumothorax is the presence of air in the pleural space and can be subdivided into first episode and recurrent. The recurrence of pneumothorax is when it occurs on the same side seven days or more after initial resolution. A pneumothorax is persistent if the air leak lasts for more than five days (Schidlow 1993). Managing spontaneous pneumothoraces is controversial and there is no standard treatment. Medical and surgical intervention are the two main categories for the treatment of recurrent pneumothoraces in people with cystic fibrosis. While surgical interventions are felt to be more effective in people without cystic fibrosis, the complications directly related to the procedure, as well as the post-operative complications make surgical interventions riskier for people with cystic fibrosis. Additionally, these interventions have the potential to make people with cystic fibrosis ineligible for lung transplantation in the future. Therefore, the benefits and side effects or disadvantages for the medical and surgical treatment of recurrent pneumothoraces in people with cystic fibrosis need to be systematically reviewed.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 15%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 4 6%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 21 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Psychology 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 24 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 January 2018.
All research outputs
#8,296,727
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,927
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,150
of 286,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#133
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 286,552 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.