| Title |
Antibiotics for acute pyelonephritis in children
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003772.pub4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yvonne Strohmeier, Elisabeth M Hodson, Narelle S Willis, Angela C Webster, Jonathan C Craig |
| Abstract |
Urinary tract infection (UTI) is one of the most common bacterial infections in infants. The most severe form of UTI is acute pyelonephritis, which results in significant acute morbidity and may cause permanent kidney damage. There remains uncertainty regarding the optimum antibiotic regimen, route of administration and duration of treatment. This is an update of a review that was first published in 2003 and updated in 2005 and 2007. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 9 | 19% |
| United States | 5 | 10% |
| Mexico | 4 | 8% |
| Italy | 2 | 4% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Argentina | 1 | 2% |
| Singapore | 1 | 2% |
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 19 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 39 | 81% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 13% |
| Scientists | 2 | 4% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 184 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 26 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 13% |
| Other | 15 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 33 | 18% |
| Unknown | 51 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 83 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 6% |
| Psychology | 6 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 17 | 9% |
| Unknown | 59 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. 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 27 September 2019.
All research outputs
#779,641
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,438
of 13,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,314
of 240,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#31
of 238 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,134 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 89% 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 240,620 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 238 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.