↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Double bag or Y-set versus standard transfer systems for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in end-stage kidney disease

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
Title
Double bag or Y-set versus standard transfer systems for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in end-stage kidney disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003078.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Conal Daly, June D Cody, Izhar Khan, Kannaiyan S Rabindranath, Luke Vale, Sheila A Wallace

Abstract

Peritonitis is the most frequent serious complication of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). It has a major influence on the number of patients switching from CAPD to haemodialysis and has probably restricted the wider acceptance and uptake of CAPD as an alternative mode of dialysis.This is an update of a review first published in 2000.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 90 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 18%
Student > Master 16 17%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Other 9 10%
Researcher 7 8%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 15 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 20 22%

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 12 January 2017.
All research outputs
#3,403,314
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,920
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,058
of 229,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#164
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 229,818 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.