| Title |
Botulinum toxin type A versus botulinum toxin type B for cervical dystonia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004314.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gonçalo S Duarte, Mafalda Castelão, Filipe B Rodrigues, Raquel E Marques, Joaquim Ferreira, Cristina Sampaio, Austen P Moore, João Costa |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 States | 2 | 29% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Portugal | 1 | 14% |
| Ireland | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 231 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 36 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 6% |
| Researcher | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 52 | 23% |
| Unknown | 74 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 68 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 10 | 4% |
| Psychology | 9 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 9 | 4% |
| Other | 33 | 14% |
| Unknown | 83 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 30 October 2017.
All research outputs
#4,254,058
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,685
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,893
of 322,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#136
of 265 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 322,250 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 265 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.