↓ 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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
215 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

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 215 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 211 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 13%
Other 28 13%
Student > Bachelor 27 13%
Student > Postgraduate 25 12%
Researcher 24 11%
Other 55 26%
Unknown 27 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 137 64%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Other 14 7%
Unknown 39 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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
#1,633,562
of 17,360,236 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,051
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,697
of 312,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#108
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,360,236 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 312,846 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 246 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 56% of its contemporaries.