| Title |
Trifocal intraocular lenses versus bifocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction among participants with presbyopia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd012648.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Diego Zamora-de La Cruz, Karla Zúñiga-Posselt, John Bartlett, Mario Gutierrez, Samuel A Abariga |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 29% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 14% |
| Mexico | 1 | 14% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 94 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 13% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 6% |
| Researcher | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 39 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Psychology | 2 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 46 | 49% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 05 August 2020.
All research outputs
#6,906,044
of 25,462,162 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,329
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,066
of 434,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#106
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,462,162 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 434,482 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.