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 |
Phacoemulsification versus extracapsular extraction: governmental costs
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinics, April 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1590/s1807-59322010000400002 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Newton Kara-Junior, Maysa Godoy Gomes Mazurek Sirtoli, Marcony Rodrigues Santhiago, Tais Renata Ribeira Parede, Rodrigo França de Espíndola, Regina de Souza Carvalho |
| Abstract |
To evaluate the governmental costs of patients undergoing phacoemulsification and extracapsular cataract extraction at a public hospital in a developing country. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Dominican Republic | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 4 | 8% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 48 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 21% |
| Unknown | 9 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 58% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 10 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 December 2013.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinics
#667
of 1,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,549
of 103,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinics
#8
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 103,526 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.