↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Aspiration and sclerotherapy versus hydrocoelectomy for treating hydrocoeles

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
Title
Aspiration and sclerotherapy versus hydrocoelectomy for treating hydrocoeles
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009735.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Behnam Shakiba, Kazem Heidari, Arsia Jamali, Kourosh Afshar

Abstract

Hydrocoeles are common cystic scrotal abnormalities, described as a fluid-filled collection between the visceral and parietal layers of the tunica vaginalis of the scrotum. There are two approaches for treatment of hydrocoeles: surgical open hydrocoelectomy and aspiration followed by sclerotherapy.  OBJECTIVES: We compared the benefits and harms of aspiration and sclerotherapy versus hydrocoelectomy for the management of hydrocoeles.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 135 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 14%
Student > Master 15 11%
Student > Postgraduate 12 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Researcher 6 4%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 56 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 7%
Psychology 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Computer Science 2 1%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 63 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 31 December 2014.
All research outputs
#16,106,935
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,216
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,458
of 270,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#221
of 241 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 270,474 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 241 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.