↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Acupuncture for mumps in children

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

About this Attention Score

  • 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
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
Title
Acupuncture for mumps in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD008400.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jing He, Pengli Jia, Min Zheng, Mingming Zhang, Hua Jiang

Abstract

Mumps is an acute, viral illness transmitted by respiratory droplets and saliva. A number of studies published in China have suggested that acupuncture is beneficial for children with mumps but the literature reporting the benefits or harms of acupuncture for mumps has not been systematically reviewed. To determine the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for children with mumps. We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1950 to November week 3, 2014), EMBASE (1974 to December 2014), CINAHL (1981 to December 2014), AMED (1985 to December 2014), the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM) (1979 to November 2014), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (1979 to November 2014), Chinese Technology Periodical Database (CTPD) (1989 to November 2014) and Wanfang database (1982 to November 2014). We also handsearched a number of journals (from first issue to current issue). Randomised controlled trials comparing acupuncture with placebo acupuncture, no management, Chinese medication, Western medication or other treatments for mumps. Acupuncture included either traditional acupuncture or contemporary acupuncture, regardless of the source of stimulation (body, electro, scalp, fire, hand, fine needle, moxibustion). Two review authors independently extracted data. We identified no trials for inclusion in this updated review. No study met our inclusion criteria. We could not reach any conclusion about the efficacy and safety of acupuncture as we identified no trials for inclusion in this review. More high-quality research is needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 94 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 15%
Researcher 11 12%
Other 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 32 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Computer Science 3 3%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 37 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 December 2020.
All research outputs
#6,358,153
of 25,386,440 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,028
of 12,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,328
of 361,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#162
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,386,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,869 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.2. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 361,119 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 259 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.