↓ Skip to main content

Manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age-related cataract

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 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
Manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age-related cataract
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008813.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yasmin Riaz, Samantha R de Silva, Jennifer R Evans

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 2 2%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 106 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Postgraduate 14 13%
Student > Master 13 12%
Other 11 10%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 22 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 10%
Psychology 4 4%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 29 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 31 March 2016.
All research outputs
#1,485,526
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,827
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,935
of 264,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#81
of 152 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 264,747 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 152 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.