↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty for treating keratoconus

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
95 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
187 Mendeley
Title
Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty for treating keratoconus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009700.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miriam Keane, Douglas Coster, Mohammed Ziaei, Keryn Williams

Abstract

Keratoconus is an ectatic (weakening) disease of the cornea, which is the clear surface at the front of the eye. Approximately 10% to 15% of patients diagnosed with keratoconus require corneal transplantation. This may be full-thickness (penetrating) or partial-thickness (lamellar).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 185 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 14%
Student > Bachelor 24 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Student > Postgraduate 17 9%
Researcher 16 9%
Other 39 21%
Unknown 46 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 86 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Psychology 6 3%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 54 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 May 2019.
All research outputs
#6,452,505
of 21,343,037 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,297
of 12,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,188
of 208,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#155
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,343,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,045 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.0. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 208,122 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 210 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.