↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus intraoperative cholangiography for diagnosis of common bile duct stones

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2015
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 (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
228 Mendeley
Title
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus intraoperative cholangiography for diagnosis of common bile duct stones
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010339.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Vanja Giljaca, Yemisi Takwoingi, David Higgie, Goran Poropat, Davor Štimac, Brian R Davidson

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 228 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ecuador 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 226 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 12%
Student > Master 24 11%
Other 20 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 8%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Other 53 23%
Unknown 65 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 112 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Social Sciences 5 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 12 5%
Unknown 74 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 March 2024.
All research outputs
#4,258,074
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,551
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,165
of 270,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#136
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd 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 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 270,353 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 81% 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 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.