| Title |
Interventions for drooling in children with cerebral palsy.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008624.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Walshe M, Smith M, Pennington L, Walshe, Margaret, Smith, Martine, Pennington, Lindsay, Margaret Walshe, Martine Smith, Lindsay Pennington |
| Abstract |
Drooling is a common problem for children with cerebral palsy (CP). This can be distressing for these children as well as for their parents and caregivers. The consequences of drooling include risk of social rejection, damp and soiled clothing, unpleasant odour, irritated chapped skin, mouth infections, dehydration, interference with speech, damage to books, communication aids, computers, and the risk of social isolation (Blasco 1992; Van der Burg 2006). A range of interventions exist that aim to reduce or eliminate drooling. There is a lack of consensus regarding which interventions are most effective for children with CP. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 398 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 394 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 59 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 51 | 13% |
| Researcher | 40 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 34 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 33 | 8% |
| Other | 86 | 22% |
| Unknown | 95 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 123 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 42 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 33 | 8% |
| Psychology | 23 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 3% |
| Other | 56 | 14% |
| Unknown | 110 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 February 2021.
All research outputs
#4,013,738
of 22,687,320 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,444
of 12,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,572
of 178,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#125
of 236 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,687,320 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,301 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 178,993 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 236 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.