↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Remediating buildings damaged by dampness and mould for preventing or reducing respiratory tract symptoms, infections and asthma.

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Remediating buildings damaged by dampness and mould for preventing or reducing respiratory tract symptoms, infections and asthma.
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007897.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Riitta Sauni, Jukka Uitti, Merja Jauhiainen, Kathleen Kreiss, Torben Sigsgaard, Jos H Verbeek, Sauni R, Uitti J, Jauhiainen M, Kreiss K, Sigsgaard T, Verbeek JH, Sauni, Riitta, Uitti, Jukka, Jauhiainen, Merja, Kreiss, Kathleen, Sigsgaard, Torben, Verbeek, Jos H

Abstract

Dampness and mould in buildings have been associated with adverse respiratory symptoms, asthma and respiratory infections of inhabitants. Moisture damage is a very common problem in private houses, workplaces and public buildings such as schools.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Student > Master 6 12%
Researcher 5 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 44%
Environmental Science 3 6%
Computer Science 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 13 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 07 November 2013.
All research outputs
#6,254,025
of 22,694,633 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,078
of 12,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,006
of 125,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#59
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,694,633 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,303 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 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 125,661 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.