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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Epinephrine injection versus epinephrine injection and a second endoscopic method in high-risk bleeding ulcers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd005584.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mercedes Vergara, Cathy Bennett, Xavier Calvet, Javier P Gisbert |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 25% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 13% |
| India | 1 | 13% |
| Mexico | 1 | 13% |
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 146 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 18 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 12% |
| Researcher | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 9% |
| Other | 24 | 16% |
| Unknown | 43 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 67 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 8% |
| Psychology | 5 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 6% |
| Unknown | 48 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 08 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,300,425
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,774
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,231
of 268,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#55
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 268,437 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.