↓ 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 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
40 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 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

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 122 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Student > Postgraduate 13 11%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Other 25 20%
Unknown 27 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Engineering 7 6%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 39 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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
#780,784
of 17,489,191 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,009
of 11,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,423
of 346,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#15
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,489,191 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,701 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 346,324 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.