↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Lung lavage for meconium aspiration syndrome in newborn infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 Mendeley
Title
Lung lavage for meconium aspiration syndrome in newborn infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003486.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Seokyung Hahn, Hyun Jin Choi, Roger Soll, Peter A. Dargaville

Abstract

Meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS) can occur when a newborn infant inhales a mixture of meconium and amniotic fluid into the lungs around the time of delivery. Other than supportive measures, little effective therapy is available. Lung lavage may be a potentially effective treatment for MAS by virtue of removing meconium from the airspaces and altering the natural course of the disease.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 153 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 12%
Researcher 16 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Other 12 8%
Other 31 20%
Unknown 49 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 52 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 15 March 2016.
All research outputs
#2,322,496
of 25,388,353 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,841
of 12,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,837
of 202,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#95
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,388,353 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,736 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
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 202,646 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.