↓ Skip to main content

Aspiration and sclerotherapy versus hydrocoelectomy for treating hydrocoeles

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Aspiration and sclerotherapy versus hydrocoelectomy for treating hydrocoeles
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009735.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Behnam Shakiba, Kazem Heidari, Arsia Jamali, Kourosh Afshar

Abstract

Hydrocoeles are common cystic scrotal abnormalities, described as a fluid-filled collection between the visceral and parietal layers of the tunica vaginalis of the scrotum. There are two approaches for treatment of hydrocoeles: surgical open hydrocoelectomy and aspiration followed by sclerotherapy.  OBJECTIVES: We compared the benefits and harms of aspiration and sclerotherapy versus hydrocoelectomy for the management of hydrocoeles.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Postgraduate 6 15%
Unspecified 5 13%
Other 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 49%
Unspecified 8 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 4 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 31 December 2014.
All research outputs
#9,618,907
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,519
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,079
of 228,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#213
of 236 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 228,594 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 236 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.