The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 |
Epinephrine injection versus epinephrine injection and a second endoscopic method in high-risk bleeding ulcers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd005584.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mercedes Vergara, Cathy Bennett, Xavier Calvet, Javier P Gisbert |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 14% |
| Mexico | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 164 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 18 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 8% |
| Other | 30 | 18% |
| Unknown | 48 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 69 | 42% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 9 | 5% |
| Psychology | 5 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 14 | 9% |
| Unknown | 53 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,347,005
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,824
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,659
of 268,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#54
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 268,944 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.