| Title |
Interventions for unexplained infertility: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd012692.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rui Wang, Nora A Danhof, Raissa I Tjon-Kon-Fat, Marinus JC Eijkemans, Patrick MM Bossuyt, Monique H Mochtar, Fulco van der Veen, Siladitya Bhattacharya, Ben Willem J Mol, Madelon van Wely |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 6 | 29% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 14% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| France | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 19% |
| Scientists | 3 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 159 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 10% |
| Other | 13 | 8% |
| Researcher | 13 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 14% |
| Unknown | 59 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 18 | 11% |
| Unknown | 71 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 24 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,225,709
of 23,408,972 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,824
of 12,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,559
of 341,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#36
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,408,972 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,685 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 341,560 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 172 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.