↓ Skip to main content

Phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age-related cataract

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 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
Phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age-related cataract
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008812.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samantha R de Silva, Yasmin Riaz, Jennifer R Evans

Abstract

Age-related cataract is one of the leading causes of blindness worldwide. Therefore, it is important to establish the most effective surgical technique for cataract surgery.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 108 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 16%
Student > Master 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Student > Postgraduate 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 23 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Psychology 5 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Decision Sciences 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 31 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 10 April 2017.
All research outputs
#1,893,273
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,263
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,089
of 239,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#88
of 177 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 239,527 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 177 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.