↓ 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

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
135 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Student > Master 6 14%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 8 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 61%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 10 23%

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 01 April 2013.
All research outputs
#10,622,733
of 17,067,437 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,821
of 11,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,991
of 161,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#88
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,067,437 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,628 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.6. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 161,926 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.