↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Isotonic versus hypotonic solutions for maintenance intravenous fluid administration in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
109 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
291 Mendeley
Title
Isotonic versus hypotonic solutions for maintenance intravenous fluid administration in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009457.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah McNab, Robert S Ware, Kristen A Neville, Karen Choong, Mark G Coulthard, Trevor Duke, Andrew Davidson, Tavey Dorofaeff

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 291 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Unknown 287 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 37 13%
Other 31 11%
Student > Master 30 10%
Student > Postgraduate 29 10%
Researcher 27 9%
Other 72 25%
Unknown 65 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 160 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 2%
Psychology 4 1%
Other 21 7%
Unknown 79 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 25 December 2018.
All research outputs
#2,944,891
of 25,390,203 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,653
of 12,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,405
of 359,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#122
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,390,203 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,712 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 359,699 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.