↓ Skip to main content

Biochemical tests of placental function versus ultrasound assessment of fetal size for stillbirth and small-for-gestational-age infants

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
54 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 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
Biochemical tests of placental function versus ultrasound assessment of fetal size for stillbirth and small-for-gestational-age infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2019
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012245.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander EP Heazell, Dexter JL Hayes, Melissa Whitworth, Yemisi Takwoingi, Susan E Bayliss, Clare Davenport

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 54 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 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 147 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 31 21%
Researcher 24 16%
Student > Master 22 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Other 11 7%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 24 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 7%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Computer Science 2 1%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 34 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 05 September 2019.
All research outputs
#573,769
of 15,787,688 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,508
of 11,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,191
of 269,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,787,688 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,287 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 269,726 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.