↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Physical methods versus drug placebo or no treatment for managing fever in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2003
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
Title
Physical methods versus drug placebo or no treatment for managing fever in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004264
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin M Meremikwu, Angela Oyo-Ita

Abstract

Health workers recommend bathing, sponging and other physical methods to treat fever in children and to avoid febrile convulsions. We know little about the most effective methods, or how these methods compare with commonly used drugs. To evaluate the benefits and harms of physical cooling methods used for managing fever in children. We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group specialized trials register (February 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 1, 2003), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2003), EMBASE (1988 to November 2002), CINHAL (1982 to February 2003), LILACS (February 2003), Science Citation Index (1981 to February 2003), and reference lists of articles. We also contacted researchers in the field. Randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing physical methods with a drug placebo or no treatment in children with fever of presumed infectious origin. Studies where children in both groups were given an antipyretic drug were included. Two reviewers independently assessed trial methodological quality. One reviewer extracted data and the other checked the data for accuracy. Results were expressed as Relative Risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for discrete variables, and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes. Seven trials, involving 467 participants, met the inclusion criteria. One small trial (n = 30), comparing physical methods with drug placebo, did not demonstrate a difference in the proportion of children without fever by one hour after treatment in a comparison between physical methods alone and drug placebo. In 2 studies, where all children received an anti-pyretic drug, physical methods resulted in a higher proportion of children without fever at one hour (n=125, RR 11.8, CI 3.39 to 40.8). I; in a third study (n=130), which only reported mean change in temperature, no differences wereas detected. Mild adverse events (shivering and goose pimples) were more common in the physical methods group (3 trials, RR 5.09; CI 1.56 to 16.60). A few small studies demonstrate that tepid sponging helps to reduce fever in children.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Unknown 83 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Postgraduate 9 11%
Researcher 8 9%
Other 7 8%
Other 20 24%
Unknown 19 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 20%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 21 25%

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 09 September 2022.
All research outputs
#4,488,458
of 22,207,651 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,869
of 12,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,357
of 253,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#243
of 457 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,207,651 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,211 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.9. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 253,297 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 457 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.