↓ Skip to main content

Retinopathy of prematurity in English neonatal units: a national population-based analysis using NHS operational data

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Disease in Childhood -- Fetal & Neonatal Edition, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
62 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.
Article details
Title
Retinopathy of prematurity in English neonatal units: a national population-based analysis using NHS operational data
Published in
Archives of Disease in Childhood -- Fetal & Neonatal Edition, December 2013
DOI 10.1136/archdischild-2013-304508
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To report on retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening compliance against a national guideline, factors associated with non-compliance and effect on ROP treatment.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Ethiopia 1 2%
Unknown 61 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Master 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Librarian 3 5%
Other 15 24%
Unknown 18 29%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 16 26%
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 10 June 2017.
All research outputs
#22,948,859
of 34,360,257 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Disease in Childhood -- Fetal & Neonatal Edition
#2,099
of 2,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,777
of 375,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Disease in Childhood -- Fetal & Neonatal Edition
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,360,257 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,707 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 375,574 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.