↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for internal jugular vein catheterization

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
40 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
278 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
439 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 439 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 431 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 69 16%
Other 52 12%
Researcher 46 10%
Student > Bachelor 45 10%
Student > Postgraduate 36 8%
Other 101 23%
Unknown 90 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 228 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 43 10%
Social Sciences 6 1%
Psychology 6 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 1%
Other 37 8%
Unknown 114 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 04 February 2021.
All research outputs
#793,115
of 18,476,586 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,951
of 11,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,159
of 318,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#48
of 249 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,476,586 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 11,837 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 318,118 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 249 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.