The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users 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.
| Title |
Topical anaesthesia plus intracameral lidocaine versus topical anaesthesia alone for phacoemulsification cataract surgery in adults
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd005276.pub4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Neda Minakaran, Daniel G Ezra, Bruce Ds Allan |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 24% |
| Spain | 2 | 12% |
| India | 1 | 6% |
| Australia | 1 | 6% |
| Belgium | 1 | 6% |
| Denmark | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 12% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 103 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 11% |
| Researcher | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 13% |
| Unknown | 45 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 12% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 6% |
| Psychology | 5 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 50 | 49% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 15 May 2023.
All research outputs
#2,305,268
of 26,314,361 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,603
of 13,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,483
of 431,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#80
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,314,361 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,206 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 431,295 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 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 56% of its contemporaries.