The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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.
Title |
Chest radiographs for acute lower respiratory tract infections
|
---|---|
Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
|
DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009119.pub2 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Amy Millicent Y Cao, Joleen P Choy, Lakshmi Narayana Mohanakrishnan, Roger F Bain, Mieke L van Driel |
Abstract |
Acute lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) (e.g. pneumonia) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality and management focuses on early treatment. Chest radiographs (X-rays) are one of the commonly used strategies. Although radiological facilities are easily accessible in high-income countries, access can be limited in low-income countries. The efficacy of chest radiographs as a tool in the management of acute LRTIs has not been determined. Although chest radiographs are used for both diagnosis and management, our review focuses only on management. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
Mexico | 1 | 6% |
Unknown | 15 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 13 | 76% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 18% |
Scientists | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 316 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | <1% |
Canada | 1 | <1% |
Brazil | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 313 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 41 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 37 | 12% |
Researcher | 25 | 8% |
Other | 18 | 6% |
Student > Postgraduate | 18 | 6% |
Other | 71 | 22% |
Unknown | 106 | 34% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 113 | 36% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 8% |
Social Sciences | 12 | 4% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 3% |
Psychology | 8 | 3% |
Other | 32 | 10% |
Unknown | 119 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 October 2021.
All research outputs
#1,248,294
of 26,589,077 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,388
of 13,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,953
of 325,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#49
of 241 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,589,077 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 13,247 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 325,328 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 241 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.