↓ Skip to main content

Percussion, diuresis, and inversion therapy for the passage of lower pole kidney stones following shock wave lithotripsy

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd 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
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
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.

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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 56 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 19%
Student > Master 11 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 13 23%
Unknown 5 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 14%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 8 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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
#3,517,316
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,058
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,887
of 241,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#77
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 241,252 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.