| Title |
Home versus in-centre haemodialysis for end-stage kidney disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009535.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Suetonia C Palmer, Andrew R Palmer, Jonathan C Craig, David W Johnson, Paul Stroumza, Luc Frantzen, Miguel Leal, Susanne Hoischen, Jorgen Hegbrant, Giovanni FM Strippoli |
| Abstract |
Home haemodialysis is associated with improved survival and quality of life in uncontrolled studies. However, relative benefits and harms of home versus in-centre haemodialysis in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are uncertain. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 230 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 40 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 16 | 7% |
| Researcher | 15 | 6% |
| Other | 45 | 19% |
| Unknown | 66 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 67 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 42 | 18% |
| Unspecified | 16 | 7% |
| Psychology | 8 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 26 | 11% |
| Unknown | 67 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 02 October 2018.
All research outputs
#4,569,085
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,932
of 12,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,611
of 362,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#157
of 270 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 362,064 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 270 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.