| Title |
Amplification with hearing aids for patients with tinnitus and co‐existing hearing loss
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd010151.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Derek J Hoare, Mark Edmondson‐Jones, Magdalena Sereda, Michael A Akeroyd, Deborah Hall |
| Abstract |
Tinnitus is described as the perception of sound or noise in the absence of real acoustic stimulation. In the current absence of a cure for tinnitus, clinical management typically focuses on reducing the effects of co-morbid symptoms such as distress or hearing loss. Hearing loss is commonly co-morbid with tinnitus and so logic implies that amplification of external sounds by hearing aids will reduce perception of the tinnitus sound and the distress associated with it. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 21% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 21% |
| United States | 2 | 14% |
| Canada | 2 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 79% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 14% |
| Scientists | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 299 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 295 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 62 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 37 | 12% |
| Researcher | 36 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 5% |
| Other | 37 | 12% |
| Unknown | 82 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 82 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 37 | 12% |
| Psychology | 19 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 10 | 3% |
| Other | 42 | 14% |
| Unknown | 98 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 02 March 2020.
All research outputs
#2,988,150
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,700
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,736
of 323,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#116
of 239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
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 323,406 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 239 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.