| Title |
Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for internal jugular vein catheterization
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd006962.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Patrick Brass, Martin Hellmich, Laurentius Kolodziej, Guido Schick, Andrew F Smith |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 8 | 21% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 15% |
| Australia | 3 | 8% |
| Mexico | 2 | 5% |
| Italy | 2 | 5% |
| Poland | 1 | 3% |
| Vietnam | 1 | 3% |
| Ireland | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 27 | 69% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 13% |
| Scientists | 4 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 583 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 575 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 78 | 13% |
| Other | 67 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 55 | 9% |
| Researcher | 52 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 41 | 7% |
| Other | 122 | 21% |
| Unknown | 168 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 269 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 55 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 1% |
| Psychology | 7 | 1% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 1% |
| Other | 44 | 8% |
| Unknown | 194 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 22 February 2023.
All research outputs
#1,198,088
of 24,884,310 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,580
of 12,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,109
of 363,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#56
of 279 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,884,310 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,995 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 363,266 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 279 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.