↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Banding ligation versus beta‐blockers for primary prevention in oesophageal varices in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
162 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Banding ligation versus beta‐blockers for primary prevention in oesophageal varices in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004544.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lise Lotte Gluud, Aleksander Krag

Abstract

Non-selective beta-blockers are used as a first-line treatment for primary prevention in patients with medium- to high-risk oesophageal varices. The effect of non-selective beta-blockers on mortality is debated and many patients experience adverse events. Trials on banding ligation versus non-selective beta-blockers for patients with oesophageal varices and no history of bleeding have reached equivocal results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Guatemala 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 153 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 20 13%
Student > Master 20 13%
Student > Postgraduate 16 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Researcher 14 9%
Other 42 27%
Unknown 31 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 86 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Psychology 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 7 4%
Unknown 44 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 16 May 2021.
All research outputs
#3,275,968
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,916
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,049
of 186,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#98
of 209 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 186,217 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 209 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 53% of its contemporaries.