↓ Skip to main content

Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for subclavian or femoral vein catheterization

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
33 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
141 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
232 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
Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for subclavian or femoral vein catheterization
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011447
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick Brass, Martin Hellmich, Laurentius Kolodziej, Guido Schick, Andrew F Smith

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 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 232 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Norway 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 227 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 14%
Other 30 13%
Student > Master 29 13%
Student > Bachelor 27 12%
Student > Postgraduate 20 9%
Other 68 29%
Unknown 26 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 135 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Engineering 3 1%
Other 22 9%
Unknown 40 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 27 April 2020.
All research outputs
#908,602
of 15,132,971 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,658
of 11,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,826
of 301,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#77
of 249 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,132,971 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,112 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 301,465 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 249 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 69% of its contemporaries.