↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Honey and lozenges for children with non-specific cough

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2009
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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Honey and lozenges for children with non-specific cough
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2009
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007523.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Selamawit Mulholland, Anne B Chang

Abstract

Chronic non-specific cough is a chronic, dry cough of in the absence of identifiable respiratory disease or known aetiology. Although it is usually not reflective of an underlying severe illness, it does cause significant morbidity, and as such relief from it is often sought. The use of honey and lozenges to soothe upper respiratory tract irritation is common, inexpensive, and potentially more effective in treating the symptoms than pharmacological interventions.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Egypt 1 1%
Unknown 73 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 21%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Master 8 11%
Other 6 8%
Professor 6 8%
Other 21 28%
Unknown 11 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 41%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 13 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 20 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,217,279
of 17,349,416 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,160
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,176
of 226,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#132
of 505 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,349,416 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 24.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 226,572 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 505 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 74% of its contemporaries.