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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Percussion, diuresis, and inversion therapy for the passage of lower pole kidney stones following shock wave lithotripsy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008569.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Liang Ren Liu, Qi Jun Li, Qiang Wei, Zhen Hua Liu, Yong Xu |
| Abstract |
Lower pole kidney stones typically have poor rates of spontaneous clearance from the body. Some studies have suggested that diuresis, percussion and inversion therapy could be beneficial for people with lower pole kidney stones following shock wave lithotripsy. There is however controversy about the relative benefits, harms, and efficacy of these interventions for the management of lower pole kidney stones. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Australia | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 121 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 28 | 23% |
| Unknown | 35 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 5% |
| Psychology | 4 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 10% |
| Unknown | 38 | 31% |
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 26 November 2015.
All research outputs
#14,445,382
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,805
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,869
of 320,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#181
of 215 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 320,446 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 215 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.