↓ Skip to main content

Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis versus automated peritoneal dialysis for end-stage renal disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2007
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis versus automated peritoneal dialysis for end-stage renal disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006515
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kannaiyan S Rabindranath, James Adams, Tariq Z Ali, Alison M MacLeod, Luke Vale, June D Cody, Sheila A Wallace, Conal Daly

Abstract

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) can be performed either manually as in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) or using mechanical devices as in automated PD (APD). APD has been considered to have several advantages over CAPD such as reduced incidence of peritonitis, mechanical complications and greater psychosocial acceptability.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
Canada 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Brunei Darussalam 1 1%
Singapore 1 1%
Unknown 75 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 16%
Student > Master 11 14%
Researcher 9 11%
Unspecified 8 10%
Other 25 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 53%
Unspecified 13 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Psychology 5 6%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 12 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 03 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,218,574
of 13,589,098 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,002
of 10,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,134,572
of 12,919,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,662
of 9,768 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,589,098 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,646 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 12,919,412 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9,768 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 51% of its contemporaries.