↓ Skip to main content

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on postdural puncture headache: a consensus report from a multisociety international working group

Overview of attention for article published in Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, August 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#22 of 2,692)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
228 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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.
Title
Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on postdural puncture headache: a consensus report from a multisociety international working group
Published in
Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, August 2023
DOI 10.1136/rapm-2023-104817
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vishal Uppal, Robin Russell, Rakesh V Sondekoppam, Jessica Ansari, Zafeer Baber, Yian Chen, Kathryn DelPizzo, Dan Sebastian Dirzu, Hari Kalagara, Narayan R Kissoon, Peter G Kranz, Lisa Leffert, Grace Lim, Clara Lobo, Dominique Nuala Lucas, Eleni Moka, Stephen E Rodriguez, Herman Sehmbi, Manuel C Vallejo, Thomas Volk, Samer Narouze

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 228 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 11 12%
Unspecified 10 11%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 37 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 38%
Unspecified 10 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Social Sciences 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 40 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 152. 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 25 September 2024.
All research outputs
#292,956
of 26,741,403 outputs
Outputs from Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine
#22
of 2,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,602
of 367,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine
#1
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,741,403 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,692 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 367,438 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.