↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Nurse‐led versus doctor‐led preoperative assessment for elective surgical patients requiring regional or general anaesthesia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 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 (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
290 Mendeley
Title
Nurse‐led versus doctor‐led preoperative assessment for elective surgical patients requiring regional or general anaesthesia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010160.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda Nicholson, Chris H Coldwell, Sharon R Lewis, Andrew F Smith

Timeline
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 290 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
France 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 283 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 14%
Researcher 29 10%
Student > Bachelor 29 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 7%
Other 16 6%
Other 60 21%
Unknown 94 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 85 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 50 17%
Psychology 9 3%
Social Sciences 9 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 2%
Other 22 8%
Unknown 108 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 17 August 2020.
All research outputs
#5,010,282
of 26,608,834 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,194
of 13,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,001
of 226,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#148
of 248 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,608,834 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,244 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.6. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 226,788 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 248 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.