The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for subclavian or femoral vein catheterization
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd011447 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Patrick Brass, Martin Hellmich, Laurentius Kolodziej, Guido Schick, Andrew F Smith |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 6% |
| Poland | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Colombia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 26 | 79% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 25 | 76% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 15% |
| Scientists | 2 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 425 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 420 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 49 | 12% |
| Other | 48 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 45 | 11% |
| Researcher | 40 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 7% |
| Other | 97 | 23% |
| Unknown | 118 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 196 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 47 | 11% |
| Psychology | 6 | 1% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 1% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 1% |
| Other | 29 | 7% |
| Unknown | 137 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 28 August 2022.
All research outputs
#1,824,894
of 26,365,186 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,734
of 13,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,432
of 362,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#81
of 277 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,365,186 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,216 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 362,482 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 277 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 70% of its contemporaries.