↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Hydrosurgical debridement versus conventional surgical debridement for acute partial‐thickness burns

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2020
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 Mendeley
Title
Hydrosurgical debridement versus conventional surgical debridement for acute partial‐thickness burns
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2020
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012826.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Justin Cr Wormald, Ryckie G Wade, Jonathan A Dunne, Declan P Collins, Abhilash Jain

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 152 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Student > Master 14 9%
Student > Postgraduate 10 7%
Other 9 6%
Researcher 9 6%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 69 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 12%
Psychology 5 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 1%
Unspecified 2 1%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 77 51%
Attention Score in Context

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 03 November 2020.
All research outputs
#2,734,734
of 25,387,668 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,330
of 11,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,192
of 424,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#90
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,387,668 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,486 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 424,599 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.