| Title |
Needle aspiration versus intercostal tube drainage for pneumothorax in the newborn
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd011724.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matteo Bruschettini, Olga Romantsik, Simona Zappettini, Colm PF O'Donnell, Maria Grazia Calevo |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 22% |
| Brazil | 2 | 11% |
| Sweden | 2 | 11% |
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 78% |
| Scientists | 2 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 119 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 11% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 16% |
| Unknown | 49 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 10% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Unknown | 54 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 01 July 2021.
All research outputs
#2,156,765
of 23,125,690 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,642
of 12,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,621
of 438,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#97
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,125,690 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 438,256 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.