↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 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 (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
112 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
213 Mendeley
Title
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007044.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Attasit Srisubat, Somkiat Potisat, Bannakij Lojanapiwat, Vasun Setthawong, Malinee Laopaiboon

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 211 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 14%
Student > Bachelor 27 13%
Researcher 24 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 9%
Student > Postgraduate 18 8%
Other 47 22%
Unknown 47 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 91 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 11%
Engineering 7 3%
Psychology 7 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 2%
Other 23 11%
Unknown 57 27%

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 01 April 2021.
All research outputs
#3,363,601
of 17,602,756 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,960
of 11,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,443
of 315,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#144
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,602,756 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,720 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 315,322 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 245 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.