↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing venous insufficiency in a standing worker population

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 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 (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 Mendeley
Title
Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing venous insufficiency in a standing worker population
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006345.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lindsay Robertson, Su Ern Yeoh, Dinanda N Kolbach

Abstract

Chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) is a common problem, affecting up to 50% of the population in industrialised countries. It is a chronic condition which, if untreated, can progress to serious complications that in turn can interfere with working ability. Standing at work is a known risk factor for CVI, yet the true effect of non-pharmacological preventive strategies remains unknown. This is an update of a review first published in 2012.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 170 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 27 16%
Student > Master 24 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 12%
Researcher 17 10%
Other 9 5%
Other 34 20%
Unknown 40 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 14%
Psychology 9 5%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 45 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 20 October 2022.
All research outputs
#2,347,045
of 23,563,389 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,009
of 12,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,180
of 212,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#99
of 211 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,563,389 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 12,743 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 212,619 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 89% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.