↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping for patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
155 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
Title
Endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping for patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2005
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003085.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Irene van der Schaaf, Ale Algra, Marieke Wermer, Andrew Molyneux, Mike J Clarke, Jan van Gijn, Gabriel JE Rinkel

Abstract

Patients who have had an aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) are at very high risk of rebleeding if the aneurysm is not treated. The standard treatment for several decades has been surgical clipping of the neck of the aneurysm. In recent years, an alternative, the introduction of detachable coils to occlude the aneurysm, has become more common.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 13 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 49%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 18 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 24 January 2016.
All research outputs
#7,236,093
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,304
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,612
of 70,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#35
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 70,956 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.