↓ Skip to main content

Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2019
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006460.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tianjing Li, Riaz Qureshi, Kate Taylor

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 37 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 18%
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Other 4 11%
Professor 3 8%
Other 9 24%
Unknown 5 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 39%
Psychology 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 10 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 07 November 2019.
All research outputs
#4,314,413
of 14,242,710 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,295
of 10,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,980
of 317,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#21
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,242,710 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,910 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 317,463 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 59% 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 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.