↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Iodised salt for preventing iodine deficiency disorders

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2002
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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
208 Mendeley
Title
Iodised salt for preventing iodine deficiency disorders
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2002
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003204
Pubmed ID
Authors

Taixiang Wu, Guan Jian Liu, Ping Li, Christine Clar

Abstract

Iodine deficiency is the main cause for potentially preventable mental retardation in childhood, as well as causing goitre and hypothyroidism in people of all ages. It is still prevalent in large parts of the world. To assess the effects of iodised salt in comparison with other forms of iodine supplementation or placebo in the prevention of iodine deficiency disorders. We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, the Register of Chinese trials developed by the Chinese Cochrane Centre, and the Chinese Med Database. We performed handsearching of a number of journals (Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases, Chinese Journal of Epidemiology, Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine, and Studies of Trace Elements and Health up to February 2001), and searched reference lists, databases of ongoing trials and the Internet. Date of latest search: November 2001. We included prospective controlled studies of iodised salt versus other forms of iodine supplementation or placebo in people living in areas of iodine deficiency. Studies reported mainly goitre rates and urinary iodine excretion as outcome measures. The initial data selection and quality assessment of trials was done independently by two reviewers. Subsequently, after the scope of the review was slightly widened from including only randomised controlled trials to including non-randomised prospective comparative studies, a third reviewer repeated the trials selection and quality assessment. As the studies identified were not sufficiently similar and not of sufficient quality, we did not do a meta-analysis but summarised the data in a narrative format. We found six prospective controlled trials relating to our question. Four of these were described as randomised controlled trials, one was a prospective controlled trial that did not specify allocation to comparison groups, and one was a repeated cross-sectional study comparing different interventions. Comparison interventions included non-iodised salt, iodised water, iodised oil, and salt iodisation with potassium iodide versus potassium iodate. Numbers of participants in the trials ranged from 35 to 334; over 20,000 people were included in the cross-sectional study. Three studies were in children only, two investigated both groups of children and adults and one investigated pregnant women. There was a tendency towards goitre reduction with iodised salt, although this was not significant in all studies. There was also an improved iodine status in most studies (except in small children in one of the studies), although urinary iodine excretion did not always reach the levels recommended by the WHO. None of the studies observed any adverse effects of iodised salt. The results suggest that iodised salt is an effective means of improving iodine status. No conclusions can be made about improvements in other, more patient-oriented outcomes, such as physical and mental development in children and mortality. None of the studies specifically investigated development of iodine-induced hyperthyroidism, which can be easily overlooked if just assessed on the basis of symptoms. High quality controlled studies investigating relevant long term outcome measures are needed to address questions of dosage and best means of iodine supplementation in different population groups and settings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 208 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Zimbabwe 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 203 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 20%
Student > Bachelor 35 17%
Researcher 24 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 10%
Student > Postgraduate 13 6%
Other 36 17%
Unknown 38 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 8%
Psychology 13 6%
Social Sciences 9 4%
Other 25 12%
Unknown 50 24%

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 16 September 2020.
All research outputs
#2,120,376
of 18,897,820 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,721
of 11,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,302
of 305,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#113
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,897,820 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 11,887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 305,989 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 243 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 53% of its contemporaries.