↓ Skip to main content

Ultrasound versus liver function tests for diagnosis of common bile duct stones

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 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 versus liver function tests for diagnosis of common bile duct stones
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011548
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Vanja Giljaca, Yemisi Takwoingi, David Higgie, Goran Poropat, Davor Štimac, Brian R Davidson

Abstract

Ultrasound and liver function tests (serum bilirubin and serum alkaline phosphatase) are used as screening tests for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. There has been no systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound and liver function tests.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 151 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 17%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Postgraduate 16 11%
Other 16 11%
Other 32 21%
Unknown 26 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 81 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Computer Science 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 36 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 03 December 2018.
All research outputs
#4,170,570
of 13,968,403 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,143
of 10,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,923
of 215,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#176
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,968,403 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,778 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.5. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 215,171 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 254 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.