The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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.
| Title |
Angioplasty versus stenting for infrapopliteal arterial lesions in chronic limb‐threatening ischaemia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009195.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Charlie C‐T Hsu, Gigi NC Kwan, Dalveer Singh, John A Rophael, Chris Anthony, Mieke L van Driel |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 2 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 20% |
| Ecuador | 2 | 20% |
| Turkey | 1 | 10% |
| Australia | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 70% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 30% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 244 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 244 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 37 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 11% |
| Researcher | 18 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 7% |
| Other | 41 | 17% |
| Unknown | 87 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 94 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 2% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 23 | 9% |
| Unknown | 94 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 16 August 2019.
All research outputs
#5,146,770
of 26,617,918 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,301
of 13,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,120
of 451,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#157
of 223 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,617,918 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 451,079 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 223 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.