↓ 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 (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
112 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 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

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 147 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 16%
Other 14 9%
Student > Master 14 9%
Researcher 13 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 53 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Psychology 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 56 37%
Attention Score in Context

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
#7,943,688
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,207
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,205
of 177,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#119
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 177,196 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.