↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Knee length versus thigh length graduated compression stockings for prevention of deep vein thrombosis in postoperative surgical patients

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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
Title
Knee length versus thigh length graduated compression stockings for prevention of deep vein thrombosis in postoperative surgical patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007162.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Muhammad S Sajid, Mital Desai, Richard W Morris, George Hamilton

Abstract

Graduated compression stockings (GCS) are a valuable means of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised postoperative surgical patients. But it is still unclear whether knee length graduated compression stockings (KL) or thigh length (TL) stockings are more effective.

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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 98 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 20%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Other 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 29 28%
Unknown 18 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 12%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 20 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 20 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,709,636
of 17,365,229 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,185
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,131
of 133,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#26
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,365,229 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 133,261 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 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 74% of its contemporaries.