↓ Skip to main content

Transulnar versus transradial access for coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions (Formerly Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis), September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
guideline
2 clinical guideline sources

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Transulnar versus transradial access for coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions (Formerly Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis), September 2015
DOI 10.1002/ccd.26221
Pubmed ID
Authors

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 13 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 39 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 %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 15%
Researcher 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 5%
Student > Master 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 17 44%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Mathematics 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 17 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 27 February 2025.
All research outputs
#2,947,047
of 34,410,798 outputs
Outputs from Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions (Formerly Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis)
#324
of 4,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,149
of 301,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions (Formerly Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis)
#5
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,798 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,712 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 301,361 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 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.