↓ Skip to main content

Protocol for a systematic review of venous coupler devices versus hand-sewn anastomosis for microsurgical free flap reconstruction

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, November 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 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
Protocol for a systematic review of venous coupler devices versus hand-sewn anastomosis for microsurgical free flap reconstruction
Published in
Systematic Reviews, November 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0871-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timo Rodi, Alexander Geierlehner, Afshin Mosahebi, Grigorios Tanos, Justin Conrad Rosen Wormald

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 1 14%
Other 1 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 14%
Student > Master 1 14%
Unknown 3 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 29%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 14%
Unknown 3 43%

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 11 March 2019.
All research outputs
#4,267,369
of 14,480,135 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#788
of 1,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,494
of 372,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#176
of 211 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,480,135 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 1,274 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 372,770 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 62% 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 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.