↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
100 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006029.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Omar M Aboumarzouk, Slawomir G Kata, Francis X Keeley, Samuel McClinton, Ghulam Nabi

Abstract

Ureteral stones frequently cause renal colic, and if left untreated, can lead to obstructive uropathy. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy, with or without intracorporeal lithotripsy, are the most common interventions used to treat ureteral stones. ESWL treatment is less invasive than ureteroscopy, but has some limitations such as a high retreatment rate, and is not available in all centres. Recent advances in ureteroscopy have increased success rates and reduced complication rates.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 2%
Brazil 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 89 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 18%
Other 11 12%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 25 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Psychology 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 26 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 27 December 2018.
All research outputs
#6,750,519
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,424
of 12,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,693
of 163,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#106
of 178 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 163,786 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 178 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.