↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
227 Mendeley
Title
Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010036.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gijsbert M Overdevest, Wilco Jacobs, Carmen Vleggeert-Lankamp, Claudius Thomé, Robert Gunzburg, Wilco Peul

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 227 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 226 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 14%
Student > Master 30 13%
Student > Bachelor 27 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 7%
Other 38 17%
Unknown 66 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 94 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 7%
Psychology 9 4%
Neuroscience 5 2%
Engineering 5 2%
Other 17 7%
Unknown 81 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 21 October 2021.
All research outputs
#5,711,760
of 20,858,036 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,765
of 12,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,133
of 231,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#165
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,858,036 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,059 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.5. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 231,391 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.