↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age‐related cataract

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
205 Mendeley
Title
Phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age‐related cataract
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008812.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samantha R de Silva, Yasmin Riaz, Jennifer R Evans

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 205 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 203 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 14%
Student > Master 28 14%
Student > Bachelor 23 11%
Student > Postgraduate 17 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 24 12%
Unknown 72 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 8%
Psychology 5 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 1%
Other 14 7%
Unknown 81 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 10 April 2017.
All research outputs
#6,481,555
of 25,838,141 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,040
of 13,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,671
of 325,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#158
of 242 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,838,141 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.2. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 325,709 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 242 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.