↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Capsule endoscopy for the diagnosis of oesophageal varices in people with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 Mendeley
Title
Capsule endoscopy for the diagnosis of oesophageal varices in people with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008760.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Agostino Colli, Juan Cristóbal Gana, Dan Turner, Jason Yap, Thomasin Adams-Webber, Simon C Ling, Giovanni Casazza

Abstract

Current guidelines recommend performance of oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy at the time of diagnosis of hepatic cirrhosis to screen for oesophageal varices. These guidelines require people to undergo an unpleasant invasive procedure repeatedly with its attendant risks, despite the fact that half of the people do not have identifiable oesophageal varices 10 years after the initial diagnosis of cirrhosis. Video capsule endoscopy is a non-invasive test proposed as an alternative method for the diagnosis of oesophageal varices.

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 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 155 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 17%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Other 34 22%
Unknown 41 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 8%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 52 33%

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 11 April 2022.
All research outputs
#6,364,812
of 21,546,712 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,201
of 12,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,599
of 226,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#178
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,546,712 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,070 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.3. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 226,203 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.