| Title |
Functional endoscopic balloon dilation of sinus ostia for chronic rhinosinusitis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008515.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jahangir Ahmed, Surojit Pal, Claire Hopkins, Samuel Jayaraj |
| Abstract |
Dilation of sinus ostia using a high-pressure balloon has been introduced as a treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) refractory to medical treatment. The efficacy of this technology, however, has not been systematically reviewed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 80% |
| Australia | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 119 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 13% |
| Other | 13 | 11% |
| Researcher | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 22 | 18% |
| Unknown | 35 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 55 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Unknown | 42 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 January 2020.
All research outputs
#5,543,221
of 25,707,225 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,778
of 13,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,337
of 128,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#53
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,707,225 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,137 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 128,360 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.