↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Physical methods for preventing deep vein thrombosis in stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Physical methods for preventing deep vein thrombosis in stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001922.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcello Naccarato, Fabio Chiodo Grandi, Martin Dennis, Peter AG Sandercock

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 143 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 19%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Postgraduate 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Other 12 8%
Other 31 22%
Unknown 32 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 14%
Neuroscience 5 3%
Engineering 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 35 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 March 2018.
All research outputs
#8,535,684
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,054
of 11,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,011
of 104,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#60
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,483 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 104,063 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.