| Title |
Subconjunctival draining minimally‐invasive glaucoma devices for medically uncontrolled glaucoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd012742.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anthony J King, Anupa Shah, Eleni Nikita, Kuang Hu, Caroline A Mulvaney, Richard Stead, Augusto Azuara‐Blanco |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 33% |
| Germany | 1 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 123 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 10% |
| Researcher | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Professor | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 15% |
| Unknown | 56 | 46% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 2% |
| Psychology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Unknown | 64 | 52% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 14 December 2023.
All research outputs
#3,731,101
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,459
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,283
of 445,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#149
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
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 445,768 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.