↓ Skip to main content

Protocol for a systematic review of venous coupler devices versus hand-sewn anastomosis for microsurgical free flap reconstruction

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, November 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
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
Protocol for a systematic review of venous coupler devices versus hand-sewn anastomosis for microsurgical free flap reconstruction
Published in
Systematic Reviews, November 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0871-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timo Rodi, Alexander Geierlehner, Afshin Mosahebi, Grigorios Tanos, Justin Conrad Rosen Wormald

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 20%
Other 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 8 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 48%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 March 2019.
All research outputs
#7,578,554
of 23,112,054 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,317
of 2,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,357
of 343,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#64
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,112,054 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 343,845 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.