↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Intermittent iron supplementation for improving nutrition and development in children under 12 years of age

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
108 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
420 Mendeley
Title
Intermittent iron supplementation for improving nutrition and development in children under 12 years of age
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009085.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luz Maria De-Regil, Maria Elena D Jefferds, Allison C Sylvetsky, Therese Dowswell

Abstract

Approximately 600 million children of preschool and school age are anaemic worldwide. It is estimated that half of the cases are due to iron deficiency. Consequences of iron deficiency anaemia during childhood include growth retardation, reduced school achievement, impaired motor and cognitive development, and increased morbidity and mortality. The provision of daily iron supplements is a widely used strategy for improving iron status in children but its effectiveness has been limited due to its side effects, which can include nausea, constipation or staining of the teeth. As a consequence, intermittent iron supplementation (one, two or three times a week on non-consecutive days) has been proposed as an effective and safer alternative to daily supplementation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 420 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 410 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 72 17%
Researcher 61 15%
Student > Bachelor 52 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 12%
Other 28 7%
Other 97 23%
Unknown 59 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 154 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 58 14%
Social Sciences 34 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 5%
Psychology 14 3%
Other 60 14%
Unknown 79 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 02 March 2017.
All research outputs
#816,073
of 17,358,590 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,118
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,132
of 222,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#86
of 486 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,358,590 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 222,113 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 486 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.