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 |
Interventions for visual field defects in patients with stroke
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008388.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alex Pollock, Christine Hazelton, Clair A Henderson, Jayne Angilley, Baljean Dhillon, Peter Langhorne, Katrina Livingstone, Frank A Munro, Heather Orr, Fiona J Rowe, Uma Shahani |
| Abstract |
Visual field defects are estimated to affect 20% to 57% of people who have had a stroke. Visual field defects can affect functional ability in activities of daily living (commonly affecting mobility, reading and driving), quality of life, ability to participate in rehabilitation, and depression, anxiety and social isolation following stroke. There are many interventions for visual field defects, which are proposed to work by restoring the visual field (restitution); compensating for the visual field defect by changing behaviour or activity (compensation); substituting for the visual field defect by using a device or extraneous modification (substitution); or ensuring appropriate diagnosis, referral and treatment prescription through standardised assessment or screening, or both. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 319 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Unknown | 315 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 61 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 48 | 15% |
| Researcher | 43 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 39 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 7% |
| Other | 55 | 17% |
| Unknown | 52 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 89 | 28% |
| Psychology | 57 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 36 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 20 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 5% |
| Other | 41 | 13% |
| Unknown | 60 | 19% |
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 06 January 2012.
All research outputs
#20,723,696
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,914
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,153
of 144,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#119
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 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 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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 144,881 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.