↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
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 (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 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
Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010036.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gijsbert M Overdevest, Wilco Jacobs, Carmen Vleggeert-Lankamp, Claudius Thomé, Robert Gunzburg, Wilco Peul

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 156 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 17%
Student > Master 25 16%
Student > Bachelor 22 14%
Other 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 8%
Other 28 18%
Unknown 29 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Psychology 8 5%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 44 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 30 November 2016.
All research outputs
#2,135,179
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,622
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,407
of 217,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#129
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 217,267 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.