↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Zinc supplements for treating thalassaemia and sickle cell disease

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
212 Mendeley
Title
Zinc supplements for treating thalassaemia and sickle cell disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009415.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kye Mon Min Swe, Adinegara BL Abas, Amit Bhardwaj, Ankur Barua, N S Nair

Abstract

Haemoglobinopathies, inherited disorders of haemoglobin synthesis (thalassaemia) or structure (sickle cell disease), are responsible for significant morbidity and mortality throughout the world. The WHO estimates that, globally, 5% of adults are carriers of a haemoglobin condition, 2.9% are carriers of thalassaemia and 2.3% are carriers of sickle cell disease. Carriers are found worldwide as a result of migration of various ethnic groups to different regions of the world. Zinc is an easily available supplement and intervention programs have been carried out to prevent deficiency in people with thalassaemia or sickle cell anaemia. It is important to evaluate the role of zinc supplementation in the treatment of thalassaemia and sickle cell anaemia to reduce deaths due to complications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 210 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 19%
Student > Bachelor 29 14%
Researcher 20 9%
Student > Postgraduate 16 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 8%
Other 40 19%
Unknown 51 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 4%
Other 21 10%
Unknown 57 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 31 July 2020.
All research outputs
#6,512,770
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,114
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,998
of 208,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#182
of 302 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 208,684 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 302 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.