↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Rigid dressings versus soft dressings for transtibial amputations

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 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 (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
264 Mendeley
Title
Rigid dressings versus soft dressings for transtibial amputations
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2019
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012427.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Li Khim Kwah, Matthew T Webb, Lina Goh, Lisa A Harvey

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 264 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 264 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 13%
Student > Bachelor 32 12%
Researcher 23 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 6%
Student > Postgraduate 16 6%
Other 44 17%
Unknown 99 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 38 14%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Psychology 5 2%
Other 31 12%
Unknown 110 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 23 June 2022.
All research outputs
#3,239,317
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,998
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,713
of 367,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#97
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 367,838 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.