↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Extended versus standard lymph node dissection for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder in patients undergoing radical cystectomy

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 Mendeley
Title
Extended versus standard lymph node dissection for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder in patients undergoing radical cystectomy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2019
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd013336
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eu Chang Hwang, Niranjan J Sathianathen, Mari Imamura, Gretchen M Kuntz, Michael C Risk, Philipp Dahm

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 143 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 13%
Student > Bachelor 18 13%
Other 11 8%
Researcher 9 6%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 56 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Unspecified 4 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 63 44%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 30 March 2021.
All research outputs
#5,601,999
of 23,146,350 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,443
of 12,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,344
of 351,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#124
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,146,350 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,382 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.5. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 351,369 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.