↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Positive pressure therapy for Ménière's disease or syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
12 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
Title
Positive pressure therapy for Ménière's disease or syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008419.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sanne van Sonsbeek, Bas Pullens, Peter Paul van Benthem

Abstract

Ménière's disease is an incapacitating disease in which recurrent attacks of vertigo are accompanied by hearing loss, tinnitus and/or aural fullness, all of which are discontinuous and variable in intensity. A number of different therapies have been identified for patients with this disease, ranging from dietary measures (e.g. a low-salt diet) and medication (e.g. betahistine (Serc®), diuretics) to extensive surgery (e.g. endolymphatic sac surgery). The Meniett® low-pressure pulse generator (Medtronic ENT, 1999) is a device that is designed to generate a computer-controlled sequence of low-pressure (micro-pressure) pulses, which are thought to be transmitted to the vestibular system of the inner ear. The pressure pulse passes via a tympanostomy tube (grommet) to the middle ear, and hence to the inner ear via the round and/or oval window. The hypothesis is that these low-pressure pulses reduce endolymphatic hydrops.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 133 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 27%
Researcher 13 10%
Other 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Student > Postgraduate 11 8%
Other 27 20%
Unknown 21 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 12%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 21 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 31 August 2018.
All research outputs
#788,764
of 13,451,706 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,511
of 10,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,915
of 215,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#70
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,451,706 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,597 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 215,995 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 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 72% of its contemporaries.