The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Combined proximal descending aortic endografting plus distal bare metal stenting (PETTICOAT technique) versus conventional proximal descending aortic stent graft repair for complicated type B aortic dissections
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd013149.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dan Rong, Yangyang Ge, Jie Liu, Xiaoping Liu, Wei Guo |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 29% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 43% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 121 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 11% |
| Researcher | 11 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 14% |
| Unknown | 55 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Psychology | 2 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Unknown | 65 | 54% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 04 November 2019.
All research outputs
#6,950,351
of 25,462,162 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,234
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,624
of 377,514 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#140
of 168 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,462,162 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 377,514 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 168 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.