↓ 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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
170 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
186 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.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 182 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 13%
Researcher 20 11%
Student > Bachelor 19 10%
Student > Postgraduate 14 8%
Other 38 20%
Unknown 45 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 94 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 8%
Psychology 10 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 11 6%
Unknown 46 25%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 October 2021.
All research outputs
#2,771,829
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,404
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,959
of 239,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#99
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 239,721 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 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 57% of its contemporaries.