↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Ureteral stent versus no ureteral stent for ureteroscopy in the management of renal and ureteral calculi

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
37 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
223 Mendeley
Title
Ureteral stent versus no ureteral stent for ureteroscopy in the management of renal and ureteral calculi
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2019
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012703.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Ordonez, Eu Chang Hwang, Michael Borofsky, Caitlin J Bakker, Shreyas Gandhi, Philipp Dahm

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 223 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 223 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 12%
Researcher 22 10%
Student > Master 22 10%
Student > Postgraduate 15 7%
Other 15 7%
Other 34 15%
Unknown 89 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 7%
Psychology 7 3%
Engineering 7 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 2%
Other 17 8%
Unknown 106 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 21 March 2021.
All research outputs
#1,389,748
of 25,904,557 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,832
of 13,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,686
of 448,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#62
of 177 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,904,557 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 448,968 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 177 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.