↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Transparent Cap Colonoscopy versus Standard Colonoscopy to Improve Caecal Intubation

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
Title
Transparent Cap Colonoscopy versus Standard Colonoscopy to Improve Caecal Intubation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008211.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jenna Morgan, Kathryn Thomas, Heather Lee-Robichaud, Richard L Nelson, Sarah Braungart

Abstract

Colonoscopy is considered the gold-standard investigation for screening and diagnosis of colorectal cancer. It is also becoming increasingly desirable for assessment, management, diagnosis and follow-up of other colorectal diseases, such as inflammatory bowel diseases and acute diverticulitis. Hence, due to the increasing demand for colonoscopy, devices to advance examination techniques are highly sought-after and the colonoscope with the transparent cap could be one of these.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 1%
Unknown 88 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 13%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 27 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Psychology 6 7%
Computer Science 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 25 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 September 2016.
All research outputs
#6,788,875
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,133
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,421
of 141,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#68
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 141,991 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.