↓ Skip to main content

Functional endoscopic balloon dilation of sinus ostia for chronic rhinosinusitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Functional endoscopic balloon dilation of sinus ostia for chronic rhinosinusitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008515.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ahmed J, Pal S, Hopkins C, Jayaraj S

Abstract

Dilation of sinus ostia using a high-pressure balloon has been introduced as a treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) refractory to medical treatment. The efficacy of this technology, however, has not been systematically reviewed.

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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 21%
Student > Bachelor 2 14%
Researcher 2 14%
Student > Postgraduate 1 7%
Other 3 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 79%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Unspecified 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%

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 18 December 2012.
All research outputs
#2,891,693
of 11,317,953 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,827
of 9,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,574
of 260,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#328
of 521 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,317,953 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 260,407 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 521 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.