↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance arthrography and ultrasonography for assessing rotator cuff tears in people with shoulder pain for whom surgery is being considered

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
23 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
196 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
490 Mendeley
Title
Magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance arthrography and ultrasonography for assessing rotator cuff tears in people with shoulder pain for whom surgery is being considered
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009020.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mário Lenza, Rachelle Buchbinder, Yemisi Takwoingi, Renea V Johnston, Nigel CA Hanchard, Flávio Faloppa

Abstract

Shoulder pain is a very common symptom. Disorders of the rotator cuff tendons due to wear or tear are among the most common causes of shoulder pain and disability. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) and ultrasound (US) are increasingly being used to assess the presence and size of rotator cuff tears to assist in planning surgical treatment. It is not known whether one imaging method is superior to any of the others.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 490 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 483 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 95 19%
Student > Bachelor 57 12%
Researcher 52 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 8%
Other 37 8%
Other 111 23%
Unknown 98 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 222 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 64 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 2%
Sports and Recreations 12 2%
Social Sciences 10 2%
Other 45 9%
Unknown 125 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 80. 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 04 August 2022.
All research outputs
#455,233
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#823
of 12,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,939
of 203,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#17
of 211 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,352 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 203,792 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 211 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.