↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Functional endoscopic balloon dilation of sinus ostia for chronic rhinosinusitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
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.

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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 1 <1%
Unknown 104 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Other 13 12%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Master 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 25 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 31 30%

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
#5,381,074
of 22,656,971 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,218
of 12,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,274
of 116,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#51
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,656,971 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 116,197 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.