↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
119 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2009
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007044.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Attasit Srisubat, Somkiat Potisat, Bannakij Lojanapiwat, Vasun Setthawong, Malinee Laopaiboon

Abstract

Stones in the urinary tract are a common medical problem in the general population. At present, the great expansion in minimally invasive techniques has led to the decrease in open surgery. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has been introduced as an alternative approach which disintegrates stones in the kidney and upper urinary tract through the use of shock waves. Nevertheless, as there are limitations with the success rate in ESWL, other minimally invasive modalities for kidney stones such as percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) are also widely applied.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
Ireland 1 1%
Pakistan 1 1%
Egypt 1 1%
Nigeria 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 74 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 17%
Other 13 16%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Other 21 26%
Unknown 11 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 62%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 13 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 June 2014.
All research outputs
#7,204,211
of 13,759,462 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,062
of 10,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,275
of 185,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#86
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,759,462 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,738 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.3. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 185,098 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.