↓ Skip to main content

Machine perfusion preservation versus static cold storage for deceased donor kidney transplantation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Machine perfusion preservation versus static cold storage for deceased donor kidney transplantation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2019
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011671.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel J Tingle, Rodrigo S Figueiredo, John AG Moir, Michael Goodfellow, David Talbot, Colin H Wilson

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 15%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Engineering 2 5%
Physics and Astronomy 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 8 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 21 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,309,172
of 13,941,162 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,797
of 10,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,163
of 306,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#17
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,941,162 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,767 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 306,817 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.