↓ 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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
16 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

de Silva SR, Riaz Y, Evans JR, de Silva, Samantha R, Riaz, Yasmin, Evans, Jennifer R

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Student > Postgraduate 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Unknown 13 81%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 13%
Unspecified 1 6%
Unknown 13 81%

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
#1,186,388
of 8,485,607 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,820
of 8,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,556
of 196,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#87
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,485,607 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,641 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 196,657 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 182 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 52% of its contemporaries.