↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Ultrasound versus liver function tests 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

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 Mendeley
Title
Ultrasound versus liver function tests for diagnosis of common bile duct stones
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011548
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

Ultrasound and liver function tests (serum bilirubin and serum alkaline phosphatase) are used as screening tests for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. There has been no systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound and liver function tests.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 166 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 18%
Researcher 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 19 11%
Other 18 11%
Student > Postgraduate 16 10%
Other 33 20%
Unknown 31 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 85 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 8%
Computer Science 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 42 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 January 2021.
All research outputs
#5,195,900
of 17,389,828 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,682
of 11,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,882
of 221,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#174
of 248 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,389,828 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,668 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 221,552 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 248 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.