| Title |
Artificial corneas versus donor corneas for repeat corneal transplants
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009561.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Esen K Akpek, Majed Alkharashi, Frank S Hwang, Sueko M Ng, Kristina Lindsley |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 102 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 20 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 11% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 16 | 15% |
| Unknown | 23 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 37% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 7% |
| Engineering | 7 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 11% |
| Unknown | 30 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 26 December 2015.
All research outputs
#7,223,893
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,785
of 12,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,128
of 262,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#208
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,320 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 262,824 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.