↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Remediating buildings damaged by dampness and mould for preventing or reducing respiratory tract symptoms, infections and asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
Title
Remediating buildings damaged by dampness and mould for preventing or reducing respiratory tract symptoms, infections and asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007897.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Riitta Sauni, Jos H Verbeek, Jukka Uitti, Merja Jauhiainen, Kathleen Kreiss, Torben Sigsgaard

Abstract

Dampness and mould in buildings have been associated with adverse respiratory symptoms, asthma and respiratory infections of inhabitants. Moisture damage is a very common problem in private houses, workplaces and public buildings such as schools.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 161 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 12%
Student > Master 17 11%
Researcher 15 9%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Student > Postgraduate 13 8%
Other 37 23%
Unknown 46 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 14%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Psychology 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 56 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 15 November 2019.
All research outputs
#3,122,298
of 16,210,001 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,848
of 11,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,289
of 218,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#136
of 249 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,210,001 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,432 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.9. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 218,429 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 249 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.