↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for protecting renal function in the perioperative period

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
91 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
184 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Interventions for protecting renal function in the perioperative period
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003590.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mathew Zacharias, Mohan Mugawar, G Peter Herbison, Robert J Walker, Karen Hovhannisyan, Pal Sivalingam, Niamh P Conlon

Abstract

Various methods have been used to try to protect kidney function in patients undergoing surgery. These most often include pharmacological interventions such as dopamine and its analogues, diuretics, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, N-acetyl cysteine (NAC), atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP), sodium bicarbonate, antioxidants and erythropoietin (EPO).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 183 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 16%
Researcher 24 13%
Other 20 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 10%
Student > Bachelor 17 9%
Other 44 24%
Unknown 31 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 103 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 36 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 28 October 2013.
All research outputs
#2,840,631
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,033
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,760
of 156,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#54
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 156,599 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 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 52% of its contemporaries.