| Title |
Probiotics for preventing acute upper respiratory tract infections
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd006895.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Qiukui Hao, Bi Rong Dong, Taixiang Wu |
| Abstract |
Probiotics may improve a person's health by regulating their immune function. Some trials have shown that probiotic strains can prevent respiratory infections. Even though the previous version of our review showed benefits of probiotics for acute upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), several new studies have been published. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 11 | 19% |
| Ireland | 3 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 5% |
| Japan | 2 | 3% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 3% |
| Canada | 2 | 3% |
| Taiwan | 1 | 2% |
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 28 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 38 | 66% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 13 | 22% |
| Scientists | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 481 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 477 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 75 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 67 | 14% |
| Researcher | 55 | 11% |
| Other | 42 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 39 | 8% |
| Other | 79 | 16% |
| Unknown | 124 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 121 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 49 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 36 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 30 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 26 | 5% |
| Other | 84 | 17% |
| Unknown | 135 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 538. 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 September 2023.
All research outputs
#46,491
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#89
of 13,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#438
of 362,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2
of 271 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 362,601 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 271 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.