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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
Title |
A comparative assessment of three formulations of botulinum toxin A for facial rhytides: a systematic review and meta-analyses
|
---|---|
Published in |
Systematic Reviews, June 2013
|
DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-2-40 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
James P Bonaparte, David Ellis, Jason G Quinn, Mohammed T Ansari, Jessica Rabski, Shaun J Kilty |
Abstract |
Botulinum toxin A is a commonly used biological medication in the field of facial plastic surgery. Currently, there are three distinct formulations of botulinum toxin A, each with their purported benefits and advantages. However, there is considerable confusion as to the relative efficacy and side-effects associated with each formulation. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to systematically assess published studies and perform a meta-analysis to determine if there is a significant advantage of any of the individual formulations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 4 | 20% |
Researcher | 4 | 20% |
Student > Bachelor | 3 | 15% |
Librarian | 2 | 10% |
Other | 1 | 5% |
Other | 4 | 20% |
Unknown | 2 | 10% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 45% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 10% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 10% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 5% |
Other | 3 | 15% |
Unknown | 2 | 10% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 June 2013.
All research outputs
#16,853,934
of 25,757,133 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,732
of 2,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,878
of 210,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#22
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,757,133 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 210,416 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.