↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Electromagnetic‐guided versus endoscopic‐guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2022
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Electromagnetic‐guided versus endoscopic‐guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2022
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd013865.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jun Watanabe, Eiichi Kakehi, Masaru Okamoto, Shizukiyo Ishikawa, Yuki Kataoka

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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 2%
Student > Master 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 33 72%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 11%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Decision Sciences 1 2%
Chemical Engineering 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 35 76%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 October 2022.
All research outputs
#20,954,044
of 25,738,558 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12,237
of 13,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#325,383
of 441,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#132
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,738,558 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,137 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 441,330 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.