The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 |
Laser‐assisted cataract surgery versus standard ultrasound phacoemulsification cataract surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd010735.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alexander C Day, Daniel M Gore, Catey Bunce, Jennifer R Evans |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 19% |
| United States | 3 | 14% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 12 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 57% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 19% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 19% |
| Scientists | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 285 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 284 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 39 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 37 | 13% |
| Researcher | 29 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 6% |
| Other | 47 | 16% |
| Unknown | 97 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 97 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 9 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 34 | 12% |
| Unknown | 109 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 17 April 2019.
All research outputs
#1,430,475
of 26,316,305 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,870
of 13,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,510
of 374,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#57
of 235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,316,305 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,209 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 374,047 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 235 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.