↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Machine perfusion preservation versus static cold storage for deceased donor kidney transplantation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 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 (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
174 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
295 Mendeley
Title
Machine perfusion preservation versus static cold storage for deceased donor kidney transplantation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2019
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011671.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel J Tingle, Rodrigo S Figueiredo, John AG Moir, Michael Goodfellow, David Talbot, Colin H Wilson

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 295 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 294 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 13%
Student > Bachelor 36 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 8%
Other 19 6%
Researcher 19 6%
Other 43 15%
Unknown 114 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 92 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 5%
Engineering 9 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 31 11%
Unknown 122 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 06 February 2023.
All research outputs
#2,818,867
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,529
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,814
of 365,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#97
of 152 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 365,503 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 152 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.