↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Early routine endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography strategy versus early conservative management strategy in acute gallstone pancreatitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2012
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
147 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
258 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Early routine endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography strategy versus early conservative management strategy in acute gallstone pancreatitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009779.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frances Tse, Yuhong Yuan

Abstract

The role and timing of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in acute gallstone pancreatitis remains controversial. A number of clinical trials and meta-analyses have provided conflicting evidence.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 258 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 249 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 16%
Student > Postgraduate 32 12%
Researcher 29 11%
Student > Bachelor 26 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 9%
Other 68 26%
Unknown 39 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 146 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 7%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Psychology 7 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 2%
Other 16 6%
Unknown 58 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 01 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,241,814
of 14,222,292 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,597
of 10,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,250
of 122,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#30
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,222,292 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,897 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 122,903 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 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.