↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Cilostazol for intermittent claudication

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
126 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
317 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Cilostazol for intermittent claudication
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003748.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel Bedenis, Marlene Stewart, Marcus Cleanthis, Peter Robless, Dimitri P Mikhailidis, Gerard Stansby

Abstract

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) affects between 4% and 12% of people aged 55 to 70 years, and 20% of people over 70 years. A common complaint is intermittent claudication, characterised by pain in the legs or buttocks that occurs with exercise and which subsides with rest. Compared with age-matched controls, people with intermittent claudication have a three- to six-fold increase in cardiovascular mortality. Symptoms of intermittent claudication, walking distance, and quality of life can be improved by risk factor modification, smoking cessation, and a structured exercise programme. Antiplatelet treatment is beneficial in patients with intermittent claudication for the reduction of vascular events but has not previously been shown to influence claudication distance. This is an update of a review first published in 2007.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters 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 317 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 310 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 58 18%
Researcher 43 14%
Student > Bachelor 33 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 28 9%
Other 56 18%
Unknown 71 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 126 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 11%
Social Sciences 14 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 3%
Other 36 11%
Unknown 88 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 04 November 2020.
All research outputs
#2,065,898
of 17,614,750 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,717
of 11,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,784
of 240,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#118
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,614,750 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,723 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 240,527 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 87% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.