↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

In-bag manual versus uncontained power morcellation for laparoscopic myomectomy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
In-bag manual versus uncontained power morcellation for laparoscopic myomectomy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2020
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd013352.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fulvio Zullo, Roberta Venturella, Antonio Raffone, Gabriele Saccone

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 21 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Psychology 3 4%
Unspecified 2 3%
Philosophy 1 1%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 22 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 June 2021.
All research outputs
#11,251,814
of 18,863,398 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,736
of 11,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,852
of 290,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#20
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,863,398 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,877 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 290,004 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.