↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Percussion, diuresis, and inversion therapy for the passage of lower pole kidney stones following shock wave lithotripsy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
Title
Percussion, diuresis, and inversion therapy for the passage of lower pole kidney stones following shock wave lithotripsy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008569.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liang Ren Liu, Qi Jun Li, Qiang Wei, Zhen Hua Liu, Yong Xu

Abstract

Lower pole kidney stones typically have poor rates of spontaneous clearance from the body. Some studies have suggested that diuresis, percussion and inversion therapy could be beneficial for people with lower pole kidney stones following shock wave lithotripsy. There is however controversy about the relative benefits, harms, and efficacy of these interventions for the management of lower pole kidney stones.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 116 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 6 5%
Other 23 20%
Unknown 35 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 10%
Psychology 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 38 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 November 2015.
All research outputs
#14,445,382
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,805
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,869
of 320,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#181
of 215 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 320,446 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 215 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.