| 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
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 39% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 151 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 27 | 18% |
| Unknown | 64 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 11% |
| Psychology | 5 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 9 | 6% |
| Unknown | 72 | 48% |
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
#2,638,106
of 24,764,450 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,352
of 12,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,993
of 405,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#92
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,764,450 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 12,971 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 405,432 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 172 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.