↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
102 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
279 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
Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010036.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gijsbert M Overdevest, Wilco Jacobs, Carmen Vleggeert‐Lankamp, Claudius Thomé, Robert Gunzburg, Wilco Peul

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 279 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 278 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 35 13%
Student > Master 34 12%
Student > Bachelor 30 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Other 47 17%
Unknown 94 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 104 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 7%
Psychology 11 4%
Engineering 7 3%
Neuroscience 6 2%
Other 19 7%
Unknown 113 41%
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 21 October 2021.
All research outputs
#6,783,328
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,921
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,978
of 274,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#169
of 274 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 72nd 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 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 274,715 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 274 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.