↓ Skip to main content

Simple aspiration versus intercostal tube drainage for primary spontaneous pneumothorax in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Simple aspiration versus intercostal tube drainage for primary spontaneous pneumothorax in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004479.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wakai A, O'Sullivan RG, McCabe G, Wakai, Abel, O'Sullivan, Ronan, McCabe, Grainne

Abstract

In the management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax, simple aspiration is technically easier to perform. A systematic review may better define the clinical effectiveness and safety of simple aspiration compared to intercostal tube drainage in the management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Indonesia 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Sweden 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 46 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 22%
Other 9 18%
Student > Postgraduate 7 14%
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Other 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 88%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Chemistry 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 29 April 2013.
All research outputs
#2,772,724
of 12,101,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,001
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,909
of 274,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#116
of 211 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,101,174 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 274,296 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 211 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.