↓ Skip to main content

Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing venous insufficiency in a standing worker population

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing venous insufficiency in a standing worker population
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006345.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lindsay Robertson, Su Ern Yeoh, Dinanda N Kolbach

Abstract

Chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) is a common problem, affecting up to 50% of the population in industrialised countries. It is a chronic condition which, if untreated, can progress to serious complications that in turn can interfere with working ability. Standing at work is a known risk factor for CVI, yet the true effect of non-pharmacological preventive strategies remains unknown. This is an update of a review first published in 2012.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 73 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 19%
Student > Bachelor 11 15%
Researcher 9 12%
Unspecified 6 8%
Other 20 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 14%
Unspecified 9 12%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Psychology 4 5%
Other 12 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,697,257
of 12,673,944 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,863
of 10,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,212
of 164,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#62
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,673,944 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,398 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.1. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 164,337 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.