↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age‐related cataract

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
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 (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
184 Mendeley
Title
Manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age‐related cataract
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008813.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yasmin Riaz, Samantha R de Silva, Jennifer R Evans

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 2 1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 181 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 13%
Student > Postgraduate 19 10%
Student > Bachelor 18 10%
Student > Master 18 10%
Other 14 8%
Other 32 17%
Unknown 59 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 8%
Psychology 6 3%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 2%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 68 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 31 March 2016.
All research outputs
#3,786,726
of 25,388,353 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,487
of 12,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,647
of 220,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#123
of 214 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,388,353 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,736 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.5. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 220,733 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 214 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.