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 |
Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis on the clinical outcomes and cost of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap versus implants for breast reconstruction
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-017-0628-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ankur Khajuria, Oliver J. Smith, Maxim Prokopenko, Maximillian Greenfield, Afshin Mosahebi |
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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 90 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 11% |
| Researcher | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 21 | 23% |
| Unknown | 23 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 7% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 16% |
| Unknown | 26 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 October 2018.
All research outputs
#18,652,089
of 23,106,934 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,795
of 2,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#326,044
of 438,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#51
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,106,934 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 438,312 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.