↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Toric intraocular lens versus limbal relaxing incisions for corneal astigmatism after phacoemulsification

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 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 (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
Title
Toric intraocular lens versus limbal relaxing incisions for corneal astigmatism after phacoemulsification
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2019
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012801.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan C Lake, Gustavo Victor, Gerry Clare, Gustavo JM Porfírio, Ashleigh Kernohan, Jennifer R Evans

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 16%
Student > Master 12 14%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 21 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 23 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 14 February 2020.
All research outputs
#3,359,001
of 16,968,502 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,106
of 11,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,483
of 346,540 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,968,502 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.5. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 346,540 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.