↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Rivastigmine for vascular cognitive impairment

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
259 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Rivastigmine for vascular cognitive impairment
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004744.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacqueline Birks, Bernadette McGuinness, David Craig

Abstract

Vascular dementia represents the second most common type of dementia after Alzheimer's disease. In older patients, in particular, the combination of vascular dementia and Alzheimer's disease is common, and is referred to as mixed dementia. The classification of vascular dementia broadly follows three clinico-pathological processes: multi-infarct dementia, single strategic infarct dementia and subcortical dementia. Not all victims fulfil strict criteria for dementia and may be significantly cognitively impaired without memory loss, when the term vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) is more useful. Currently, no established standard treatment for VCI exists. Reductions in acetylcholine and acetyltransferase activity are common to both Alzheimer's disease and VCI, raising the possibility that cholinesterase inhibitors - such as rivastigmine - which are beneficial in Alzheimer's disease, may also be beneficial for VCI.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 253 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 18%
Student > Bachelor 30 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 10%
Researcher 26 10%
Student > Postgraduate 20 8%
Other 51 20%
Unknown 59 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 86 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 9%
Psychology 22 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 5%
Neuroscience 12 5%
Other 39 15%
Unknown 65 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 16 February 2022.
All research outputs
#1,984,750
of 21,806,258 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,396
of 12,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,781
of 176,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#30
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,806,258 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
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 176,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.