| Title |
Glucocorticoids for acute viral bronchiolitis in infants and young children
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004878.pub4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ricardo M Fernandes, Liza M Bialy, Ben Vandermeer, Lisa Tjosvold, Amy C Plint, Hema Patel, David W Johnson, Terry P Klassen, Lisa Hartling |
| Abstract |
Previous systematic reviews have not shown clear benefit of glucocorticoids for acute viral bronchiolitis, but their use remains considerable. Recent large trials add substantially to current evidence and suggest novel glucocorticoid-including treatment approaches. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 5 | 23% |
| Chile | 2 | 9% |
| Canada | 2 | 9% |
| Mexico | 2 | 9% |
| Argentina | 2 | 9% |
| Japan | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 444 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Egypt | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 435 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 57 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 55 | 12% |
| Researcher | 44 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 40 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 33 | 7% |
| Other | 103 | 23% |
| Unknown | 112 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 207 | 47% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 44 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 2% |
| Psychology | 9 | 2% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 8 | 2% |
| Other | 38 | 9% |
| Unknown | 128 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 February 2022.
All research outputs
#1,128,512
of 23,566,295 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,518
of 12,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,545
of 199,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#54
of 298 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,566,295 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,743 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 199,109 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 298 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.