↓ Skip to main content

Medical treatment for small abdominal aortic aneurysms

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Medical treatment for small abdominal aortic aneurysms
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009536.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guy Rughani, Lindsay Robertson, Mike Clarke

Abstract

Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in selected groups is now performed in England, the USA and Sweden. Patients with aneurysms over 55 mm in diameter are generally considered for elective surgical repair. Patients with aneurysm diameters below or equal to 55 mm (termed 'small AAAs') are managed with aneurysm surveillance as there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend surgery in these cases. As more patients are screened, there will be an increasing number of small AAAs identified. There is interest in pharmaceutical interventions (for example angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, antibiotics, beta-blockers, statins) which could be given to such patients to delay or reverse aneurysm expansion and reduce the need for elective surgical repair.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 2 2%
Australia 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 113 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 15%
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Student > Master 14 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 11%
Other 25 21%
Unknown 19 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 25 21%

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 05 January 2013.
All research outputs
#6,656,888
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,986
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,127
of 128,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#52
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 128,622 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.