↓ 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 (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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.

X Demographics

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 1 <1%
Unknown 123 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Other 13 10%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Master 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 39 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 46 37%
Attention Score in Context

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.