↓ Skip to main content

Ureteral stent versus no ureteral stent for ureteroscopy in the management of renal and ureteral calculi

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2019
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 (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Ureteral stent versus no ureteral stent for ureteroscopy in the management of renal and ureteral calculi
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2019
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012703.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Ordonez, Eu Chang Hwang, Michael Borofsky, Caitlin J Bakker, Shreyas Gandhi, Philipp Dahm

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 24%
Researcher 5 24%
Other 4 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Librarian 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 33%
Social Sciences 5 24%
Unspecified 3 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 4 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 April 2019.
All research outputs
#3,046,792
of 12,775,699 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,779
of 10,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,091
of 248,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#18
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,775,699 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,426 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 248,384 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.