↓ Skip to main content

Endovenous ablation (radiofrequency and laser) and foam sclerotherapy versus open surgery for great saphenous vein varices

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 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 (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
116 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 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
Endovenous ablation (radiofrequency and laser) and foam sclerotherapy versus open surgery for great saphenous vein varices
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005624.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Craig Nesbitt, Rachel Bedenis, Vish Bhattacharya, Gerard Stansby

Abstract

Minimally invasive techniques to treat great saphenous varicose veins include ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and endovenous laser therapy (EVLT). Compared with flush saphenofemoral ligation with stripping, also referred to as open surgery or high ligation and stripping (HL/S), proposed benefits include fewer complications, quicker return to work, improved quality of life (QoL) scores, reduced need for general anaesthesia and equivalent recurrence rates. This is an update of a review first published in 2011.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 151 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 15%
Student > Bachelor 20 13%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 9%
Other 32 21%
Unknown 25 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 12%
Psychology 11 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 28 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 02 January 2017.
All research outputs
#1,059,768
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,174
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,379
of 191,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#76
of 214 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 71% 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 191,727 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 214 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 63% of its contemporaries.