| Title |
Antibiotics for community‐acquired lower respiratory tract infections secondary to <i>Mycoplasma pneumoniae</i> in children
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004875.pub5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Samantha J Gardiner, John B Gavranich, Anne B Chang |
| Abstract |
Mycoplasma pneumoniae (M. pneumoniae) is widely recognised as an important cause of community-acquired lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) in children. Pulmonary manifestations are typically tracheobronchitis or pneumonia but M. pneumoniae is also implicated in wheezing episodes in both asthmatic and non-asthmatic individuals. Although antibiotics are used to treat LRTIs, a review of several major textbooks offers conflicting advice for using antibiotics in the management of M. pneumoniae LRTI in children. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 3 | 30% |
| Colombia | 2 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 70% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 238 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 236 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 34 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 10% |
| Other | 21 | 9% |
| Researcher | 17 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 7% |
| Other | 59 | 25% |
| Unknown | 67 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 95 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 10 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 21 | 9% |
| Unknown | 83 | 35% |
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 21 April 2022.
All research outputs
#3,039,405
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,684
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,049
of 359,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#125
of 275 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 359,244 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 275 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 54% of its contemporaries.