↓ 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 (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 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 117 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 12 10%
Student > Postgraduate 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Master 10 8%
Other 25 21%
Unknown 39 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Psychology 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 4 3%
Unknown 47 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 03 December 2023.
All research outputs
#4,620,492
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,806
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,077
of 368,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#150
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 368,426 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 254 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.