↓ Skip to main content

Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for internal jugular 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 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
36 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
188 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
289 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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 internal jugular vein catheterization
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006962.pub2
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 36 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 289 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 281 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 17%
Other 36 12%
Researcher 33 11%
Student > Bachelor 31 11%
Student > Postgraduate 25 9%
Other 78 27%
Unknown 38 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 169 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 8%
Unspecified 6 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Social Sciences 5 2%
Other 26 9%
Unknown 55 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 09 December 2019.
All research outputs
#624,099
of 14,110,335 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,908
of 10,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,528
of 297,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#56
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,110,335 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 297,090 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.