↓ Skip to main content

Extended versus standard lymph node dissection for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder in patients undergoing radical cystectomy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 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
Extended versus standard lymph node dissection for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder in patients undergoing radical cystectomy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2019
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd013336
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eu Chang Hwang, Niranjan J Sathianathen, Mari Imamura, Gretchen M Kuntz, Michael C Risk, Philipp Dahm

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 166 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 14%
Student > Master 17 10%
Other 14 8%
Researcher 12 7%
Student > Postgraduate 10 6%
Other 20 12%
Unknown 69 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 4%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Other 7 4%
Unknown 79 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 March 2021.
All research outputs
#6,361,279
of 25,462,162 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,745
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,459
of 365,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#111
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,462,162 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 365,631 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.