↓ 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 (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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

Abstract

Ureteral stones frequently cause renal colic, and if left untreated, can lead to obstructive uropathy. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy, with or without intracorporeal lithotripsy, are the most common interventions used to treat ureteral stones. ESWL treatment is less invasive than ureteroscopy, but has some limitations such as a high retreatment rate, and is not available in all centres. Recent advances in ureteroscopy have increased success rates and reduced complication rates.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 3%
Belgium 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Ireland 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 57 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 27%
Other 8 13%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 8 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Psychology 4 6%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 11 17%

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
#3,871,713
of 14,067,456 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,767
of 10,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,746
of 122,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#75
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,067,456 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,839 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 122,664 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.