The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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.
Title |
Amplification with hearing aids for patients with tinnitus and co‐existing hearing loss
|
---|---|
Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2014
|
DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd010151.pub2 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Derek J Hoare, Mark Edmondson‐Jones, Magdalena Sereda, Michael A Akeroyd, Deborah Hall |
Abstract |
Tinnitus is described as the perception of sound or noise in the absence of real acoustic stimulation. In the current absence of a cure for tinnitus, clinical management typically focuses on reducing the effects of co-morbid symptoms such as distress or hearing loss. Hearing loss is commonly co-morbid with tinnitus and so logic implies that amplification of external sounds by hearing aids will reduce perception of the tinnitus sound and the distress associated with it. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Canada | 2 | 17% |
United Kingdom | 2 | 17% |
United States | 1 | 8% |
Spain | 1 | 8% |
Unknown | 6 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 9 | 75% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 17% |
Scientists | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 309 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
Norway | 1 | <1% |
Canada | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 305 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 63 | 20% |
Researcher | 37 | 12% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 37 | 12% |
Student > Bachelor | 30 | 10% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 5% |
Other | 37 | 12% |
Unknown | 90 | 29% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 82 | 27% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 37 | 12% |
Psychology | 19 | 6% |
Social Sciences | 11 | 4% |
Neuroscience | 10 | 3% |
Other | 43 | 14% |
Unknown | 107 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 02 March 2020.
All research outputs
#3,366,211
of 26,378,648 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,946
of 13,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,299
of 326,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#116
of 238 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,378,648 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,210 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 326,052 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 238 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 51% of its contemporaries.