↓ Skip to main content

Transient neurologic symptoms (TNS) following spinal anaesthesia with lidocaine versus other local anaesthetics

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
134 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
167 Mendeley
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.
Title
Transient neurologic symptoms (TNS) following spinal anaesthesia with lidocaine versus other local anaesthetics
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2009
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003006.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dusanka Zaric, Nathan Leon Pace

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 164 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 13%
Other 18 11%
Student > Master 18 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 9%
Student > Bachelor 13 8%
Other 43 26%
Unknown 38 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 97 58%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 39 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 25 November 2023.
All research outputs
#7,077,903
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,164
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,462
of 107,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#31
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 107,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 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 52% of its contemporaries.