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 |
Endovascular versus conventional medical treatment for uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd011342 |
| Authors |
Bo Xie, Yong‐Lin Qin, Ying‐Ying Fan, Hui Jin, Yu‐Yu Yao, Gao‐Jun Teng, Wei Ding |
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 Kingdom | 3 | 43% |
| Canada | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Researcher | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 23% |
| Unknown | 10 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 52% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 12 | 27% |
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 07 October 2016.
All research outputs
#7,150,097
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,268
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,306
of 268,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#177
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 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 11,499 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 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 268,310 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 234 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.