↓ Skip to main content

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
108 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006029.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Omar M Aboumarzouk, Slawomir G Kata, Francis X Keeley, Samuel McClinton, Ghulam Nabi

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 139 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 17%
Other 14 10%
Student > Master 13 9%
Researcher 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 26 18%
Unknown 48 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Psychology 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 51 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 27 December 2018.
All research outputs
#7,811,404
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,625
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,713
of 176,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#118
of 179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 176,582 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 179 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.