↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Endoscopic pneumatic dilation versus botulinum toxin injection in the management of primary achalasia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 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 (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
Title
Endoscopic pneumatic dilation versus botulinum toxin injection in the management of primary achalasia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005046.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan E Leyden, Alan C Moss, Padraic MacMathuna

Abstract

Achalasia is an oesophageal motility disorder, of unknown cause, which results in increased lower oesophageal sphincter (LOS) tone and symptoms of difficulty swallowing. Treatments are aimed at reducing the LOS tone. Current endoscopic therapeutic options include pneumatic dilation (PD) or botulinum toxin (BTX) injection.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Egypt 1 1%
Unknown 82 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 11 13%
Student > Postgraduate 10 12%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 11%
Other 22 26%
Unknown 15 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 23 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 26 January 2016.
All research outputs
#2,627,481
of 16,649,729 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,322
of 11,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,981
of 309,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#139
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,649,729 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,560 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 309,217 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.