| Title |
Endovascular versus open surgical repair for complicated chronic Type B aortic dissection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd012992.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fionnuala Jordan, Brian FitzGibbon, Edel P Kavanagh, Peter McHugh, Dave Veerasingam, Sherif Sultan, Niamh Hynes |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 23% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Mexico | 1 | 8% |
| Ireland | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 54% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 77% |
| Scientists | 3 | 23% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 88 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 11 | 13% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 5% |
| Professor | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 45 | 51% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 17% |
| Unspecified | 11 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 10% |
| Psychology | 1 | 1% |
| Engineering | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 50 | 57% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 11 February 2022.
All research outputs
#4,230,955
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,727
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,174
of 513,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#101
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 513,793 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 155 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.