You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Prospective randomised trial of endobronchial ultrasound‐guide sheath versus computed tomography‐guided percutaneous core biopsies for peripheral lung lesions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Internal Medicine Journal, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2011.02707.x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
D. I. Fielding, C. Chia, P. Nguyen, F. Bashirzadeh, J. Hundloe, I. G. Brown, K. Steinke |
| Abstract |
To determine diagnostic rate, complications and patient tolerability of endobronchial ultrasound-guide sheath (EBUS-GS) and computed tomography (CT)-guided percutaneous core biopsy for peripheral lung lesions. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 9 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 August 2012.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Internal Medicine Journal
#2,187
of 2,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,269
of 186,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Internal Medicine Journal
#16
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,579 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 186,134 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.