| Title |
Antibiotics for the common cold and acute purulent rhinitis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd000247.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tim Kenealy, Bruce Arroll |
| Abstract |
It has long been believed that antibiotics have no role in the treatment of common colds yet they are often prescribed in the belief that they may prevent secondary bacterial infections. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 104 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 34 | 33% |
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| Spain | 3 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Benin | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 60 | 58% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 102 | 98% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 407 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 400 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 60 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 52 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 35 | 9% |
| Other | 32 | 8% |
| Researcher | 31 | 8% |
| Other | 96 | 24% |
| Unknown | 101 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 175 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 19 | 5% |
| Psychology | 10 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 2% |
| Other | 54 | 13% |
| Unknown | 117 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 197. 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 16 March 2024.
All research outputs
#205,058
of 25,736,439 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#348
of 13,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,310
of 210,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11
of 295 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,736,439 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,137 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 210,827 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 295 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.