↓ 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, July 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
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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, July 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russian Federation 1 2%
Unknown 57 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 17%
Researcher 10 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Other 6 10%
Student > Master 5 9%
Other 18 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 67%
Unspecified 7 12%
Engineering 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 5 9%

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
#3,177,795
of 12,101,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,540
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,016
of 255,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#247
of 422 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,101,174 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
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 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 255,095 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 422 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.