↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Smectite for acute infectious diarrhoea in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2018
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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
24 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
Title
Smectite for acute infectious diarrhoea in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011526.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giordano Pérez-Gaxiola, Carlos A Cuello-García, Ivan D Florez, Víctor M Pérez-Pico

Abstract

As mortality secondary to acute infectious diarrhoea has decreased worldwide, the focus shifts to adjuvant therapies to lessen the burden of disease. Smectite, a medicinal clay, could offer a complementary intervention to reduce the duration of diarrhoea. To assess the effects of smectite for treating acute infectious diarrhoea in children. We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Pubmed), Embase (Ovid), LILACS, reference lists from studies and previous reviews, and conference abstracts, up to 27 June 2017. Randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing smectite to a control group in children aged one month to 18 years old with acute infectious diarrhoea. Two review authors independently screened abstracts and the full texts for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were duration of diarrhoea and clinical resolution at day 3. We summarized continuous outcomes using mean differences (MD) and dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses and assessed heterogeneity. We explored publication bias using a funnel plot. Eighteen trials with 2616 children met our inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in both ambulatory and in-hospital settings, and in both high-income and low- or middle-income countries. Most studies included children with rotavirus infections, and half included breastfed children.Smectite may reduce the duration of diarrhoea by approximately a day (MD -24.38 hours, 95% CI -30.91 to -17.85; 14 studies; 2209 children; low-certainty evidence); may increase clinical resolution at day 3 (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.30 to 3.39; 5 trials; 312 children; low-certainty evidence); and may reduce stool output (MD -11.37, 95% CI -21.94 to -0.79; 3 studies; 634 children; low-certainty evidence).We are uncertain whether smectite reduces stool frequency, measured as depositions per day (MD -1.33, 95% CI -2.28 to -0.38; 3 studies; 954 children; very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of an effect on need for hospitalization (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15; 2 studies; 885 children; low-certainty evidence) and need for intravenous rehydration (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.11; 1 study; 81 children; moderate-certainty evidence). The most frequently reported side effect was constipation, which did not differ between groups (RR 4.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 39.19; 2 studies; 128 children; low-certainty evidence). No deaths or serious adverse effects were reported. Based on low-certainty evidence, smectite used as an adjuvant to rehydration therapy may reduce the duration of diarrhoea in children with acute infectious diarrhoea by a day; may increase cure rate by day 3; and may reduce stool output, but has no effect on hospitalization rates or need for intravenous therapy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Other 25 25%
Unknown 23 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 16%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 31 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 12 January 2020.
All research outputs
#903,503
of 16,587,222 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,446
of 11,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,839
of 282,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#63
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,587,222 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,537 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 282,133 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 185 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 65% of its contemporaries.